Delaney v. Garden State Auto Mall, 318 N.J.Super. 15 (App.Div 1995)
Delaney v. Garden State Auto Mall, 318 N.J.Super. 15 (App.Div 1995)
In Delaney Plaintiff responded to a newspaper advertisement in the Asbury Park Press for a 1988 Ford Crown Victoria at defendant's advertised price of $5995. Plaintiff signed an internal authorization form which listed the following items to be completed: Rust proofing, undercoating, paint sealant and fabric guard. Underneath those four items, the following appeared: All this is included in payment with the payment with the power train warranty. $218.29 b.o. 36 months. Id 17-18.
Thereafter, a retail installment sales agreement was executed; the retail installment sales agreement did not include or enumerate any pricing or listing of any type of pre-delivery service. After plaintiff made all of the payments, he received a copy of the retail installment sales agreement, disclosing that he had paid $7983 for the vehicle, an amount $2200 more than the $5783 he had agreed to pay pursuant to the retail buyer's order. Upon contacting defendant, plaintiff learned that the $2200 discrepancy represented the cost for rust proofing, undercoating, paint sealer and fabric guard. The owner testified concerning the dealership costs associated with such services. He indicated that the dealership had a working relationship with Final Detail, Inc. and paid a flat fee of $85 per vehicle to do all vehicle cleanings and cosmetic detailing, including cleaning the motor area, interior shampooing of carpets and cleaning the exterior. Rust proofing, undercoating; paint sealer and fabric guard were also included items of work under the arrangement with Final Detail for this same price of $85. The owner had no knowledge of whether there were any discussions concerning the items for which plaintiff was charged $2200. He did indicate that the internal authorization form showed those items were authorized. He did acknowledge that the items for which defendant was charged $2200 were not enumerated in the retail sales agreement. Id 17-18.
The Appellate Division had no hesitancy in concluding that the circumstances presented were designed to be eliminated by the consumer fraud legislation. The items were not enumerated in the retail installment agreement as required by N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26B.2. The Court specifically held that Rust proofing, undercoating, paint sealer and fabric guard, the items associated with the added $2200 cost, are services included in vehicle preparation prior to the delivery of an automobile and must be disclosed as set forth in the Act. The fact that certain pre delivery services were not disclosed in the final sales agreement colored the result vividly in the case and reinforces the purpose of the Act in protecting the consumer against abusive automotive sales practices. Id 20-22.
Thereafter, a retail installment sales agreement was executed; the retail installment sales agreement did not include or enumerate any pricing or listing of any type of pre-delivery service. After plaintiff made all of the payments, he received a copy of the retail installment sales agreement, disclosing that he had paid $7983 for the vehicle, an amount $2200 more than the $5783 he had agreed to pay pursuant to the retail buyer's order. Upon contacting defendant, plaintiff learned that the $2200 discrepancy represented the cost for rust proofing, undercoating, paint sealer and fabric guard. The owner testified concerning the dealership costs associated with such services. He indicated that the dealership had a working relationship with Final Detail, Inc. and paid a flat fee of $85 per vehicle to do all vehicle cleanings and cosmetic detailing, including cleaning the motor area, interior shampooing of carpets and cleaning the exterior. Rust proofing, undercoating; paint sealer and fabric guard were also included items of work under the arrangement with Final Detail for this same price of $85. The owner had no knowledge of whether there were any discussions concerning the items for which plaintiff was charged $2200. He did indicate that the internal authorization form showed those items were authorized. He did acknowledge that the items for which defendant was charged $2200 were not enumerated in the retail sales agreement. Id 17-18.
The Appellate Division had no hesitancy in concluding that the circumstances presented were designed to be eliminated by the consumer fraud legislation. The items were not enumerated in the retail installment agreement as required by N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26B.2. The Court specifically held that Rust proofing, undercoating, paint sealer and fabric guard, the items associated with the added $2200 cost, are services included in vehicle preparation prior to the delivery of an automobile and must be disclosed as set forth in the Act. The fact that certain pre delivery services were not disclosed in the final sales agreement colored the result vividly in the case and reinforces the purpose of the Act in protecting the consumer against abusive automotive sales practices. Id 20-22.