Consumer Fraud Act Claim - Prior Damage to my car, new or used. Auto Fraud Claims.
SUING A CAR DEALERSHIP FOR SELLING A CAR WITH PRIOR DAMAGE
The complaint below is an example of a standard Consumer Fraud complaint against the car dealership for selling a damaged car. New Jersey law is very liberal on the pleading requirements for a complaint to be filed in Superior Court. However, for fraud and some Consumer For claims you must plead the specifics of the fraud or consumer fraud. Sometimes this is necessary and sometimes it is not necessary. The car dealership after they are served might have their attorney filed a motion to force a more specific complaint to demonstrate the specific allegations of fraud and consumer fraud. Generally, this motion is successful, and a new complaint must be filed with permission of the court under most circumstances.
The most basic complaint would plead that the vehicle which is purchased by the plaintiff was involved in a prior accident. The plaintiff discovered the existence of a prior automobile accident after the purchase. The plaintiff did not damage the vehicle; therefore, the dealer must be damaged prior to delivery to the plaintiff. Based on the type of damage and the dealer's representations that they inspected the car dealer was aware of the damage and lied to the plaintiff for omitted material facts. These are the general allegations included in those complaints.
Sometimes there are fact specific situations as to the nature of the prior damage, issues with the title or specific statements made by a sales representative. The complaint can be amended to include the specific facts under certain circumstances. However, generally it is not needed as the dealership is aware as to what the allegations are in the car dealership is aware what salesman made what statements to the plaintiff. New Jersey law is clear on a particular obligation to inspect the vehicle. Certified Preowned Vehicles have an extensive inspection checklist which is available online.
When you look at the damage and compared to the checklist you can demonstrate that the type of damages would have been known to the selling dealership and the dealership did not disclose it to the customer, plaintiff. These are the types of allegations that are made in a complaint for prior damage on either a new or used vehicle. Obviously, on a new vehicle there should be no damage, as that is part of the bargain when you get a new vehicle. One positive vehicle to avoid prior damage or operational/mechanical issues.
In the complaint you would also plead an ascertainable loss. An ascertainable loss could be the cost to repair. Ascertainable loss could be the reduction in value. The ascertainable loss could be repair costs while the vehicle was out of service based on misrepresentations of fact or omissions of material fact. There must be a fact specific inquiry to determine what the specific allegations of consumer fraud exists, how the specific allegations of consumer fraud related to a specific claim of damage pursuant to applicable case law and regulations and the Supreme Court in the State of New Jersey.
There are specific rules for being able to present evidence to a judge or jury supporting a claim for ascertainable loss. All damages are not permitted only damages that are measurable and related to the defendant’s conduct. The court takes a liberal view on the claim of these damages however there must be some connection between the damages and the conduct. These would be deemed the ascertainable loss and the court tripled these damages, and these damages alone. At the end of the trial the attorney upon a successful verdict would make application to the court for attorney’s fees and costs for litigating the case. This to be approved by the judge. Triple damages do not need to be approved by the judge as their automatic.
JONATHAN RUDNICK ESQ
788 SHREWSBURY AVE
BUILDING 2, SUITE 204
TINTON FALLS, NJ 07724
(732) 879-0213 FAX
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
OUR FILE NO. 13702
Vs. JOHN DOE CAR SALES NEW JERSEY,
Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
- On or about April 4, 2014, the defendant dealership was licensed to sell cars in the state of New Jersey, being JOHN DOE Car Sales New Jersey.
- On or about that date, the plaintiff entered into a Retail Installment Sales contract and a buyer's order to purchase the subject automobile for approximately $10,295 plus extras.
- The plaintiff also purchased a warranty/service contract as part of the transaction.
- This was through the dealer but ultimately money forwarded to a third party. The Retail Installment Sales contract and/or documentation does not provide a listing of any money paid to third parties in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. The defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act and the plaintiff has sustained statutory and compensatory damages plus attorney's fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit.
- The plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length herein.
- At all times hereinafter, the defendant representatives misrepresented the condition of the vehicle, specifically stating that the vehicle was not involved in an automobile accident and ultimately it was in an accident.
- The plaintiff confronted the defendant dealership and explained to them that he had been advised the vehicle was in at least two subsequent accidents and the dealership refused to repurchase the vehicle despite request from the plaintiffs to do the same.
- The plaintiff has sustained an ascertainable loss as a result of the breach of the expressed warranty, breach of the Consumer Fraud Act, breach of good faith and fair dealings, breach of contract, equal, including but not limited to cost of repair and reduction of value.
- The defendants are liable because the plaintiff has sustained an ascertainable or measurable loss under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This measurable or ascertainable loss is directly and specifically attributable to the defendants deceptive acts and practices. Had the defendant made a specific affirmative representation that the vehicle had been in an accident the plaintiff would’ve made a different purchasing decision.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants together with interest and costs of the suit.JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by a jury of six (6) jurors as to all issues raised in these pleadings.DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to the provisions of R. 4:25-4, the Court is advised that JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ., is hereby designated trial counsel.CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that, pursuant to R. 4:5-1(b)(2), this matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court or of a pending arbitration, nor is any action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ.