The New Jersey Governor signed into law a bill that makes important amendments to the New Jersey New Car Lemon Law. The amendments increase the amount of time that a consumer has to get the vehicle fixed in a reasonable period of time from 18,000 miles to 24,000 miles (or 24 months, which was the same as under the old New Jersey New Car Lemon Law). Also, if a vehicle has serious defects that could cause death or serious injury, it is presumed a lemon after one failed repair attempt to the automobile.
New Jersey Lemon Law Amendments Made Official
October 8th, 2009Cigarette Retailer Assessed Fines, Fees & Costs of $762,000 For Unauthorized Cigarette Sales
October 8th, 2009A New Jersey Superior Court entered an order requiring a cigarette retailer — Red Jacket Tobacco of Salamanca, New York — to pay $762,776 in penalties, attorney’s fees and costs for the following misconduct:
· selling unregistered cigarettes without having a license
· avoiding taxes
· failing to confirm purchasers were above the age of 19
· violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, including administrative regulations adopted by the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs
The retailer’s direct-mail ads, called “Money Mailers,” were sent to approximately 60,000 New Jersey residents, violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and administrative advertising regulations by claiming that the retailer sold cigarettes “tax-free” and promising that “if we don’t have it, we can order it” when in fact the only cigarettes able to be sold are those which make the attorney general’s list of approval. By selling cigarettes without a license and by failing to comply with tax and sale practices, laws and regulations, the retailer committed unconscionable commercial practices.
Brother International Corporation Sued For Violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
June 30th, 2009New Jersey Consumers sued Brother International Corporation in a New Jersey Federal Court for alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act associated with purchases of its Multi-Function Center line of all-in-one devices. The company successfully had certain claims against it dismissed but the lawsuit remains active in the court system.
Sears Roebuck & Co. Sued For New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Violations In Home Repair Contract
June 30th, 2009Consumers sued Sears Roebuck and Co. in a New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act involving a home improvement project which was supposed to take only days to complete but which allegedly dragged on for over a year and resulted in poorly operating heating and air conditioning systems. The company got some of the claims dismissed. However, the court also found that the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by failing to: (1) obtain all required building permits; and (2) give starting and completion dates in the home improvement contract.
Arizona Iced Tea Maker Under Attack For Violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
June 30th, 2009Hornell Brewing Co., the maker of Arizona Iced Tea, is being sued for allegedly violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In the lawsuit, a consumer claims that the company allegedly marketed Arizona Iced Tea as being 100% natural when its ingredients included high fructose corn syrup.
State Courts May Enforce State Consumer Protection & Fair Lending Laws Against National Banks
June 30th, 2009The United States Supreme Court decided that states are able to enforce fair lending and consumer protection laws against national banks in state court cases. A previous federal regulation prevented states from enforcing such laws. However, the Supreme Court viewed the regulation as unreasonable. That regulation was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, thereby permitting state cases against national banks to proceed when the lawsuits seek enforce fair lending and consumer protection laws against national banks.
New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Passed In New Jersey Assembly
June 30th, 2009The New Jersey Assembly passed the New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This bill seeks to protect consumer debtors against abuses committed by debt collectors, which includes attorneys and their staff who frequently collect bills. The bill would allow consumer debtors who face violations of the New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to recover actual damages or $1,000.00 and attorney fees and litigation costs. In addition, in appropriate cases, the consumer debtors might recover punitive damages (damages designed to deter improper conduct). The New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would also provide protections against: (1) identity theft victims facing collection activities; and (2) certain efforts by debt collectors to contact the workplaces of consumer debtors. The New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would provide certain defenses that bill collectors could try to use to protect themselves against claims. While a federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act already exists, it is claimed that the New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would provide greater protections to New Jersey consumer debtors. However, until the bill becomes a law and is tested in the courts, the true strength of the bill remains in doubt. One attorney noted that the New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: (1) fails to cover the collection of debts owed to landlords or debts owed to condominium associations, whereas the a federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was recently interpreted to include the debt collection activity of attorneys trying to evict tenants for failure to pay rent; and (2) does not apply to attorneys in private practice who collect bills for the State of New Jersey.
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Case Against Snapple Beverage Co. May Be Reinstated Following Its Dismissal
June 25th, 2009After hearing arguments by the parties, a federal appeals court may allow the reinstatement of a dismissed New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act lawsuit filed against Snapple Beverage Corporation. The lawsuit claimed that Snapple misled customers by claiming that drinks were all natural, while in fact they were sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which the customers claim is a manufactured ingredient. A federal court threw out the case in 2007 after ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the federal Food and Drug Administration regulations that regulate food labels. At issue in the case is the “preemption doctrine” which bars certain lawsuits from proceeding to trial. Under the preemption doctrine, in certain situations, the existence of federal regulations or laws may prevent customers from bringing lawsuits for violations of state laws, such as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, against the manufacturer or sellers or certain products. Under the doctrine, the federal government’s right to control the conduct at issue is claimed to be greater than a customer’s right to relief. Since the Snapple case was first decided against the customers, federal courts decided certain other cases involving similar legal issues. One such case involved a lawsuit by customers who claimed that a tuna canning company committed misconduct by failing to warn of the alleged dangers of mercury poisoning when eating tuna fish. In that case, a federal court decided that the customers’ lawsuit could proceed since the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations did not conflict with the lawsuit. Also, the President recently issued a memorandum that expressed the government’s view that state law claims should only occasionally be prevented by federal law – that federal law should only occasionally limit lawsuits based on state law. Lawyers are anxiously waiting to find out the court’s latest ruling in the Snapple case.
New Jersey’s Lemon Law May Get Stronger
June 23rd, 2009The New Jersey New Car Lemon Law may be amended to increase protections for lemon buyers. A bill that would increase protections for the buyers of lemons is on its way from the New Jersey Legislature to the New Jersey Governor for his consideration. Currently, the New Jersey New Car Lemon Law only applies to defects in new motorcycles, cars, trucks and motor homes (not the home’s interiors) that can’t be repaired in a reasonable period of time during the vehicle’s first two years or 18,000 miles of operation, whichever first occurs. With automobiles becoming more and more complex, with many drivers operating their automobiles over 12,000 miles per year and with most automobile warranties having durations of between 36,000 and 100,000 miles, the New Jersey Lemon Law in its current form fails to sufficiently protect lemon buyers. Most drivers reach the 18,000 mile mark quite quickly — often before they are even able to learn that their vehicle has serious defects. The amendment to the current lemon law awaiting the New Jersey Governor’s approval would extend the period to which the lemon law applies to the first 24,000 miles of operation. Also, under the proposed amendment, if a new automobile has a defect that threatens to cause death or serious personal injuries during the vehicle’s operation, a single unsuccessful repair attempt would be all that was needed to seek lemon relief.
Homebuyers’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuits Against EIFS Manufacturer Are Dismissed
June 22nd, 2009Many homes have an Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS
applied to their exterior. EIFS may incorporate foam insulation
panels, reinforced mesh and a textured finished coating. As noted
in one case, some claim that certain products and/or installation
methods make this wall-cladding system highly susceptible to
moisture infiltration and subsequent structural damage and mold,
particularly at penetrations, joints and roof terminations. In two New
Jersey Consumer Fraud cases, New Jersey courts refused to allow
homeowners to sue the Manufacturers of the EIFS.
In the first case, homeowners, the buyers of a home from its original owners, brought claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective exterior siding product used on the home. The homeowners never: (1) had any dealings with the manufacturer; (2) were told by sellers that the home’s exterior was maintenance-free; (3) the sellers never gave homeowners any documents or literature regarding the exterior siding; (4) homeowners’ realtor never spoke to or gave any information to homeowners regarding the exterior siding; (5) before closing, homeowners allegedly never gave any thought to the exterior of the house, other than to assume it was “stucco” and maintenance-free, even though no one had made that representation to them to that effect; (6) homeowners neither asked for nor received any information from the manufacturer; and (7) homeowners never received any warranties regarding the exterior of the house. In refusing to apply the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to the EIFS manufacturer, the Court concluded that the homeowners here neither received nor relied on any misrepresentation by the manufacturer and therefore, that there existed no nexus between the homeowners’ purchase of the house and the manufacturer’s conduct or lack of conduct.
In the second case, homeowners, the buyers of a home from its original owners (who, in turn, had contracted for its construction), brought claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective exterior siding product used on the home. The original owners had no knowledge about the exterior siding and did not receive or rely on any representations about it and they lived in the house for eight years without discovering any problem with the siding. Further, the homeowners: (1) had no contact with the siding’s manufacturer; (2) did not receive or rely on any information or representations from anyone concerning the siding; (3) did not have a written warranty for the exterior siding. After they bought the home, the homeowners allegedly received a letter from their homeowners’ insurance company threatening to cancel their coverage because of the siding. Further, after buying the home the homeowners discovered that the siding was allegedly defective. In refusing the apply the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to the EIFS manufacturer, the Court explained that there was no proof of a causal connection between the manufacturer’s alleged misrepresentations about their siding and homeowners’ decision to purchase the house. Further, to the extent homeowners alleged that the manufacturer committed a knowing omission, the Court believed that there was no proof that the: (1) manufacturer intentionally concealed information from homeowners with the intention that homeowners would rely on the concealment; or (2) information at issue was material to the transaction.