Consumer Fraud Act Claim - Prior Damages to my car
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.
Dated: May 20, 2014