Law Office Of Paul DePetris
paul@newjerseylemon.com

Camden County Consumer Lawyer

AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWYER


LET AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWYER REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUIT
Camden County consumer lawsuits are a type of lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County or that usually involve a variety of contracts for the sale of goods or services in Camden County or by or with someone located in Camden County or doing business in Camden County.   Many consumer lawsuits involve an individual or business buying goods or services from a business selling those goods or services.  Often, the individual or business buying goods or services claim that the goods or services are not what was promised or what was purchased or that the services were not completed or that the goods were defective or that the individual was a fraud victim.  If you live in any of the following towns or cities, consider the services of an experienced Camden County consumer lawyer:
Albion
Ancora
Atco
Audubon
Audubon Park
Barrington 
Bellmawr
Berlin
Blackwood
Blenheim 
Blue Anchor 
Braddock
Brooklawn
Camden
Cedar Brook
Chesilhurst 
Cherry Hill
Clementon
Collingswood
Delair
Elm
Erial
Folsom
Gibbsboro
Glendora
Gloucester
Gloucester Heights
Gloucester Twp
Haddon Heights
Haddon Twp
Haddonfield
Hilltop
Hi-Nella
Kresson
Lakeland
Laurel Springs
Lawnside
Lindenwold
Magnolia
Merchantville
Mount Ephraim
Oaklyn
Pennsauken
Pine Hill
Runnemede
Sicklerville
Somerdale
Stratford
Tansboro
Voorhees
Waterford
Waterford Works
West Berlin
West Collingswood
West Collingswood Heights
Westmont
Williamstown Jct
Winslow Jct
Woodlynne


EXPERIENCE HANDLING CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUITS AND CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER DISPUTES?
Mr. DePetris has experience handling Camden County consumer lawsuits and Camden County consumer disputes, having made demands and filed lawsuits against Camden County car dealers, Camden County car repair shops, Camden County home improvement contractors and various other types of Camden County businesses.  Mr. DePetris is an experienced Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer, getting Camden County residents damages, refunds, treble damages and attorney fee awards in consumer fraud cases.   Mr. DePetris is also an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer, getting Camden County residents replacement cars, damages, refunds and attorney fee awards in lemon cases.  Mr. DePetris is also an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer who has represented many homeowners in home improvement fraud and home repair contract cases.   Mr. DePetris is also an experienced Camden County car fraud lawyer, getting refunds and settlements for many Camden County residents for defective cars and car fraud victims.


WHAT ARE SOME TYPES OF CAMDEN COUNTY CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUITS?
Camden County residents are victimized in many ways.   An experienced Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer can spot consumer fraud and give you sound advice about such matters.  There are many kinds of Camden County consumer lawsuits.  The following are some of the types of Camden County consumer lawsuits:
Advertising Fraud Lawsuits
Automotive Advertising Lawsuits
Automotive Parts Sales Lawsuits
Automotive Repair Fraud Lawsuits 
Automotive Sales Fraud Lawsuits 
Automotive Storage Lawsuits
Automotive Towing Lawsuits
Automotive Warranty Lawsuits 
Bailment Lawsuits
Boat Repair Lawsuits
Boat Storage Lawsuits
Boat Warranty Lawsuits 
Breach Of Contract Lawsuits
Breach Of Warranty Lawsuits
Business Lawsuits
Car Advertising Lawsuits
Car Parts Sale Fraud Lawsuits
Car Repair Fraud Lawsuits 
Car Sales Fraud Lawsuits 
Car Storage Lawsuits
Car Towing Lawsuits
Car Warranty Lawsuits 
Common Law Fraud Lawsuits
Construction Contract Lawsuits
Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuits
Camden County Consumer Warranty Lawsuits
Equitable Fraud Lawsuits
Fraud Lawsuits
Healthclub Membership Fraud Lawsuits
Home Appliance Sale Fraud Lawsuits
Home Improvement Lawsuits.
Home Renovation Lawsuits.
Home Repair Lawsuits.
Furniture Delivery Lawsuits
Furniture Sale Fraud Lawsuits
Home Improvement Fraud Lawsuits
Home Repair Fraud Lawsuits
Camden County Home Renovation Fraud Lawsuits
Legal Fraud Lawsuits
Lemon Law Lawsuits
Marina Storage Contract Lawsuits
Repair Fraud Lawsuits
Real Estate Construction Lawsuits
Real Estate Inspection Fraud Lawsuits
Real Estate Renovation Lawsuits
Real Estate Sale Fraud Lawsuits
Restrictive Covenant Lawsuits
Truth In Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act Lawsuits
Watercraft Repair Fraud Lawsuits
Watercraft Storage Lawsuits
Watercraft Warranty Lawsuits


LET AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWYER HELP YOU WITH YOUR CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUIT
If any of the following describe your situation, consider hiring an experienced Camden County Consumer lawyer to help you with your legal problems.   Having mechanical problems with a lemon car, truck, motorcycle, wheelchair or mobile home, trailer, boat, jetski, computer or other product?   Tired of taking your car, truck, motorcycle, mobile home, wheelchair or trailer, boat, jetski, computer or other product back to a dealership or repair shop again and again for the same problem?   Did a builder, company or dealer repair a home or a product many times and the home is still showing defects or the product still is not working right?  Did someone make misrepresentations to you regarding a home sale, vehicle or boat or wheelchair sale or vehicle odometer, computer system, boat repair, home repair, appliance repair, furniture sale or delivery or other product or service?  Do you have a home that has been nothing but problems since it was built or sold to you or did someone make misrepresentations to you regarding the home?  Are you a victim of defective home repairs or home repair fraud?  Did you get ripped off when buying a new or preowned home or car or boat?  Is someone trying to bill you for defective goods or services?  Is someone trying to collect a debt from you that you do not owe?  Are you a victim of health club fraud?  Are you being sued in Camden County small claims court or Camden County special civil part by a business from which you bought goods or services?   Are you representing yourself in a Camden County consumer lawsuit and need legal help?  Having difficulty getting your insurance carrier to provide you with coverage for a claim brought against you?  Are you the victim of a wrongful automobile repossession, motorcycle repossession, recreational vehicle repossession or boat repossession?  Did a marina commit fraud against you or damage your boat or try to charge you excessive storage fees?    Need a lawyer to evaluate whether you face responsibility for allegations of misconduct?  Are you a victim of harsh collection practices?  Let an experienced Camden County consumer lawyer help you with your Camden County consumer lawsuit.   Paul DePetris has handled many Camden County Consumer lawsuits. 


TYPES OF CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAW LAWSUITS FOR WHICH THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES
If you are involved in any of the following types of Camden County consumer lawsuits, either as a plaintiff, defendant, customer or business, consider an experienced Camden County consumer lawyer:
Advertising Fraud Lawsuits, Automotive Advertising Lawsuits, Automotive Parts Sales Lawsuits, Automotive Repair Fraud Lawsuits, Automotive Sales Fraud Lawsuits, Automotive Storage Lawsuits
Automotive Towing Lawsuits, Automotive Warranty Lawsuits, Bailment Lawsuits, Boat Repair Lawsuits,  Boat Storage Lawsuits, Boat Warranty Lawsuits, Breach Of Contract Lawsuits, Breach Of Warranty Lawsuits, Business Lawsuits, Car Advertising Lawsuits, Car Parts Sale Fraud Lawsuits, Car Repair Fraud Lawsuits, Car Sales Fraud Lawsuits, Car Storage Lawsuits, Car Towing Lawsuits, Car Warranty Lawsuits, Common Law Fraud Lawsuits, Construction Contract Lawsuits, Camden County Consumer Fraud Act lawsuits Consumer Warranty Lawsuits, Equitable Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Fraud Lawsuits, Healthclub Membership Fraud Lawsuits, Home Appliance Sale Fraud Lawsuits, Furniture Delivery Lawsuits, Furniture Sale Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Home Improvement Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Home Repair Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Home Renovation Fraud Lawsuits, Legal Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Lemon Law Lawsuits, Marina Storage Contract Lawsuits, Repair Fraud Lawsuits, Camden County Real Estate Construction Lawsuits, Camden County Real Estate Inspection Fraud Lawsuits, Real Estate Renovation Lawsuits, Real Estate Sale Fraud Lawsuits, Restrictive Covenant Lawsuits, Camden County Truth In Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act Lawsuits, Watercraft Repair Fraud Lawsuits, Watercraft Storage Lawsuits and Watercraft Warranty Lawsuits.  As an experienced Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer, Mr. DePetris is familiar with these types of lawsuits.  Quality legal services do not always have to cost a lot of money.   Mr. DePetris provides affordable services to pro se litigants and law firms involved in these types of lawsuits.  Also, as an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer, Mr. DePetris understands when a person has a valid lemon law case involving a new or used car purchase.  Further, if you have a dispute with a contractor, as an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer, Mr. DePetris can help you sort out how to handle your dispute.


WHAT TYPE OF EXPERIENCE DOES THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS HAVE IN CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUITS AND CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER CASES?  
If you are a business or consumer or even an attorney with a Camden County consumer lawsuit, let an experienced Camden County consumer lawyer assist you with the prosecution or defense of your Camden County consumer lawsuit.  Paul DePetris has represented the following persons and businesses in Camden County consumer lawsuits:  Automotive Dealers, Automotive Parts Dealers, Automobile Purchasers, Banks, Car Buyers, Car Dealers, Contractors, Corporations, Home Buyers, Camden County Home Improvement Contractors, Home Improvement Customers, Camden County Home Inspectors, Home Inspector Customers, Camden County Home Repair Contractors, Home Repair Services Customers, Home Sellers, Marinas, Real Estate Agents, Real Estate Brokers, Real Estate Salespeople, Junk Yard Dealers, Used Car Dealers, Warranty Purchasers and Watercraft Purchasers.  Let Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer help you determine if you are a victim of a lemon law violation, consumer fraud or a breach of warranty.   Don’t sleep on your rights!


AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY LEMON LAWYER 
Did you buy a lemon car or do you think you might be a lemon buyer?  The Lemon Law protects buyers and lessees when they buy or lease a lemon car, truck, SUV, recreational vehicle or motorcycle and the manufacturer cannot correct defects in the vehicle.   Don’t wait to get a no obligation phone consultation from an experienced Camden County Lemon Lawyer, since car problems often get worse rather than better and your warranty may run out!  Every year, many car buyers buy a new car in Cherry Hill or elsewhere only to find out that the car has one or more problems that causes the Lemon buyer nothing but trouble.  However, New Jersey has a strong lemon law that protects defective new car buyers.  Let an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer help you with your Camden County lemon law case.   The Law Office of Paul DePetris offers Camden County Lemon Law help and Automotive Warranty help to Camden County residents and businesses.  Consider an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer to handle the following types of Camden County consumer lawsuits:  Lemon Automobile, Lemon Boat, Lemon Car, Lemon Jetski, Lemon Motorcycle, Lemon Motor Home, Lemon Motor Scooter, Lemon Motorized Wheelchair, Lemon Recreational Vehicle, Lemon Travel Trailer.  As an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer, Paul DePetris has appeared in court in lawsuits involving Camden County Lemon Law disputes, mediated, arbitrated and tried Camden County Lemon Law lawsuits, settled Camden County Lemon Law claims and lawsuits, recovering money (including vehicle purchase refunds) and replacement vehicles for many Camden County residents and worked on Camden County Lemon Law claims and lawsuits involving many types of automobiles, such as those manufactured by General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Fleetwood, Winnebago, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Subaru, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Mercedes and Volkswagen and others.  Mr. DePetris also has written a book discussing the Camden County Lemon Laws and also has taught other attorneys about how to handle lemon cases.   Why take chances with your lemon car dispute when you can hire an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer help you with your lemon case?  Mr. DePetris often helps Camden County residents in lemon cases on a contingent basis, meaning there are no up-front attorney’s fees that you must pay to have an experienced Camden County Lemon Lawyer.   Many Camden County residents think that they can handle a lemon law case themselves, only to find out that the case is much harder than they thought and that the manufacturer or dealer who they are up against has an attorney to represent them.  Let an experienced Camden County lemon lawyer give you the edge you need.
 
AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY HOME IMPROVEMENT FRAUD LAWYER
Disputes involving home renovations are commonplace today.   Don’t be another victim of contractor fraud or a contractor’s failure to honor promises to you.   Did your home improvement project turn into a nightmare?  Does your home improvement contract or home repair contract look like it doesn’t comply with the law?  Let an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer review your home improvement contract to see if it complies with the law and if not, to tell you what you can do about it.   Is your home renovation incomplete but your contractor is asking for the final payment?   Did your contractor fail to get permits for your home renovation?  Are you dissatisfied with the work that a home improvement contractor or home repair contractor performed at your business?  Did a home improvement contractor or home repair contractor charge you for work without first getting you to sign a contract or a change order?   Did you pay a home improvement contractor a deposit and they never returned to complete your home improvement job?  Let an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer review the facts of your dispute and give you sound advice on your options under the law.  Why guess about your legal rights when you can have an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer explain the law about home improvements and your rights.  Did a home improvement contractor get you to sign a fraudulent contract?   The contractor can’t dictate all the contents of a renovation contract.  Instead, a home improvement contract must contain certain mandatory disclosures about prices and the materials to be used in the home repair job.  Let an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer tell you about the legal requirements for home improvement contracts.   Did a home improvement contractor overcharge you for work at your home?  Did a home improvement contractor or bill you for materials or supplies that they never delivered to the job site?   The law requires mandatory disclosures about materials to be used during a home renovation project.   Did you receive substandard work from a contractor?  Did a contractor perform work that proved defective?  Did a home repair contractor perform work for you without giving you a warranty for the work or a guarantee for the work?  The law requires mandatory disclosures about warranties and guarantees in home improvement contracts.  Why settle for wondering what your rights are when a no obligation legal consultation is a phone call away?   Did a Camden County home improvement contractor lie to you about their services?  Did a Camden County home improvement contractor commit consumer fraud against you?   Let an experienced Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer help you with your contractor dispute.  Did a handyman fail to honor a warranty that they issued you?  Did a contractor charge you for defective work?    Is a handyman failing to return your calls about problems with their work or problems with their bill?    Did a home repair contractor improperly put a mechanic’s lien on your home?   Let an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer help you with your home renovation lawsuit or dispute.  Paul DePetris has handled many home repair fraud cases, prosecuting such lawsuits for homeowners.  Paul DePetris is also a published legal author on the subject.   Use the services of an experienced Camden County Consumer lawyer to help you sort out your rights and to take the next step in your dispute.  


WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF CAMDEN COUNTY HOME IMPROVEMENT FRAUD?
In one home improvement fraud case involving a Camden County business involved in a Burlington County lawsuit, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. was the owner of a Servpro cleaning and restoration franchise.   Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. was "an international franchiser which specializes in mitigating damage after a fire or flood has occurred." Specifically, its trademarked motto was "clean up and restoration," and it is "often asked to work on an emergency basis to remove water and damaged materials as quickly as possible to alleviate further damage."     On October 10, 2005, the sump pump in defendants' home failed, causing their 1,700 square-foot finished basement to flood. Defendants telephoned Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. inquiring about its cleaning services. The discussion that ensued among defendants and Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s representative, Elisabeth Adams, pertaining to Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s pricing structure, is in dispute.   Adams contends she explained to defendants that: "there are several ways customers are charged depending on the type of tasks to be performed and the equipment needed to perform those tasks"; "some work, like extractions and chemical sprays, is charged by the square foot, while other work is charged by the amount of time spent"; the "use of equipment is charged by the day for each piece used"; "simple manual labor, like removing furniture before cleaning a stained carpet, would cost the then[-]going rate of $33.50 per hour during normal business hours"; and that "costs will be [a]ffected by the time of day the work is done, in that work done on evenings or [weekends] is charged at a higher rate." In addition, Adams asserts that, because defendants were unsure whether their homeowner's insurance policy would cover the services, they said they "would look into that," and at defendants' request, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. faxed them the Authorization to Perform Services and Direction of Payment (the agreement).   Conversely, defendants contend "that they were told the price for [p]laintiff's services would be $33.50 per hour, nothing more." Based on that representation, defendants entered into the agreement for Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. "to perform any and all necessary cleaning and/or restoration services" at their residence. The agreement was silent as to the amount the services would cost defendants, either in the total amount charged or on a time-and-material basis. However, the agreement authorized First Trenton Insurance Company, defendants' homeowners' insurance carrier, to pay Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. for any services performed at defendants' residence. As to defendants' obligation to pay for services rendered, the agreement provided: "It is fully understood that [defendants] . . . are personally responsible for any and all . . . costs not covered by insurance. Any and all charges for services not reimbursed by the [i]nsurance [c]ompany are the responsibility of the [defendants] and are to be paid upon the completion of work."  Beginning on the evening of October 11, 2005, and for several days thereafter, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. performed the requested services at defendants' residence. Specifically, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. properly cleaned defendants' exercise room, family room, piano room, and laundry room. After its completion of services, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. submitted an invoice to First Trenton, but after "several weeks," Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. was informed that defendants "had never turned in a claim for this loss and thus [it] needed to bill [defendants] directly." Accordingly, on December 5, 2005, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. forwarded defendants an invoice in the amount of $8,242.72. Although the invoice indicated the nature of the services rendered, it did not provide an itemized charge for each service. On January 3, 2006, based on defendants' request for a more detailed invoice, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. faxed defendants an itemized bill that included a charge for each service performed. The invoice evidences that Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. charged defendants in excess of $33.50 per hour.   Defendants refused to pay the amount requested. On May 8, 2006, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part, alleging that defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay for the services performed. Defendants counterclaimed, asserting that Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. had violated the Consumer Fraud Act by making affirmative misrepresentations and by charging in excess of the agreed-upon price of $33.50 per hour.   After the matter was transferred to the Law Division, defendants moved for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s complaint, contending that the agreement was unenforceable because Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc., as a home improvement contractor, failed to disclose the amount charged for its services in the agreement. Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. countered that its cleaning services did not qualify as a home improvement contract under the Home Improvement Practices.   Prior to the return date of the motion, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint to assert claims of unjust enrichment, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. On October 23, 2006, supported by an oral opinion of October 6, 2006, the Burlington County Superior Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.  The court reasoned that "[t]he services provided by the [p]laintiff to the [d]efendants constitute[d] a home improvement” and that the agreement "is void for [p]laintiff's failure to comply with the price disclosure requirements…."   The court also granted Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. leave to file its amended complaint. On March 23, 2007, defendants filed a second motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s amended complaint, asserting that if a party is found to have violated the Consumer Fraud Act, that party is prohibited from recovering damages for services rendered, regardless of the cause of action asserted. On April 27, 2007, the court entered an order granting the motion ("summary judgment II").  Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the order of April 27, 2007 that dismissed its amended complaint. The court denied the motion on August 24, 2007. In the interim, on June 25, 2007, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. filed a second motion for reconsideration, that time of the October 23, 2006 order dismissing its original complaint. The court denied the second motion on September 28, 2007.  On July 27, 2007, defendants moved to amend their counterclaim, asserting that Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. violated the HIP regulations and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. The court granted defendants' motion on August 24, 2007. On September 7, 2007, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; on September 20, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on their amended counterclaim. On October 19, 2007, as the court had previously determined that Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. violated the price disclosure requirements, and thus the Consumer Fraud Act, it denied Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s motion and granted defendants' partial summary judgment on Counts One and Four of their counterclaim. The court set a proof hearing on the counterclaim for December 7, 2007. At the proof hearing, the Burlington County Superior Court determined:  “to the extent that the law was violated, . . . [Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.] has no right of action against [defendants]. [Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.] violated the statute. [Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. is] barred by the statute from seeking any remedy for quantum meruit or any other cognizable action to be compensated for [its] actions.  [Defendants] are asking this [c]ourt to use that same statute to provide them a means to pay their attorneys and to have [Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.], who already provided [defendants] a great benefit, to now pay their legal fee because of the violation of this law. Before the [c]ourt gets to that juncture, it must first determine whether or not there was any ascertainable loss at [defendants']. The [c]ourt has no hesitation in declaring that there was no ascertainable loss. That -- to the contrary . . . the defendant[s] received an enormous benefit[.]  Because issues pertaining to defendants' damage claim remained unresolved at the hearing, the court reserved decision pending receipt of additional documents from the parties.  Before the parties could again be heard on the issue of damages, the matter was transferred to a second judge, the first judge having been transferred to a different division of the Burlington County Superior Court. At the continued proof hearing of February 1, 2008, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. acknowledged that "defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees," but argued that the fees should be limited to "a dollar" because defendants' conduct exacerbated the litigation. The court disagreed, determining that defendants were entitled to a $100 penalty from Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.. In addition, the judge accepted defendants' affidavit as to the amount of attorneys' fees incurred by them, noting that Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. was the party filing the numerous motions and "[t]hose motions had to be fought or resisted in court, and [defendants] . . . came out the winner in all of the motions." Accordingly, the court awarded defendants a total of $41,348: $39,535 in attorney's fees, $1,713 in costs, and the $100 penalty.    "Unlawful practices [under the Consumer Fraud Act] fall into three general categories: affirmative acts, knowing omissions, and regulation violations."   When the unlawful act consists of a violation of a regulation promulgated under the Consumer Fraud Act, "intent is not an element of the unlawful practice, and the regulations impose strict liability for such violations."   A private party may bring a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act.   On proving an ascertainable loss caused by a merchant’s unlawful practices, the consumer is entitled to treble damages and to an "award [of] reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit."   Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. argud that, because "defendants 'received an enormous benefit' and used the [CFA] as a 'weapon,' not a shield," it should have been permitted to recover for its services under the theories of unjust enrichment and misrepresentation. Not so.  Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. contends that the Burlington County Superior Court's grant of partial summary judgment II should be reversed because it found that defendants "received a tremendous benefit" and "use[d] the law as a weapon rather than a shield." However, while the Burlington County Superior Court did make that statement in discussing the issues, it held that, based on the law as previously described, it was "constrained" to grant defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.   Defendants telephoned Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. to inquire about its pricing for mitigation services, and Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. responded with a contract that violated the Consumer Fraud Act by failing to include pricing for its services. Defendants signed the contract; the work was performed; and this dispute ensued. At no time did defendants decline to include a price in the contract or refuse to sign an agreement acknowledging Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc.'s prices.   Moreover, the "shield" versus "sword" concept was not intended to apply to this situation.   Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. contends that it is unfair for defendants to have received the benefit of a dry basement without having to pay for it. That may or may not be so. However, it is only when a consumer's conduct is "so egregious" that he or she can be estopped "from claiming the Act's protection." Here, as noted by the Burlington County Superior Court, Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. did not present evidence that defendants' conduct was so egregious as to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel. As such, the Burlington County Superior Court properly granted defendants' summary judgment II motion, precluding Mitigation Services, Inc. doing business as Servpro of Cherry Hill, Inc. from recovering under the voided agreement.  


If you were a victim of home improvement fraud, don’t take chances with your Camden County Consumer lawsuit.   Consult with an experienced Camden County home improvement fraud lawyer.


AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY CAR FRAUD LAWYER  
 Let an experienced Camden County car fraud lawyer help you find out if you have a valid case against a car dealer.  Car dealer rip offs often involve a dealer trying to hide behind the words “as is” printed on a car purchase contract.  Simply because a car sale contract has the words “as is” on the contract does not mean that a car dealer can commit fraud when selling a car to a car buyer.  The law does not encourage fraud in the sale of cars.  Instead, the law protects car buyers.  Don’t be a victim of a Camden County car dealer scam involving “as is” language!  Find out what your rights are by consulting with an experience Camden County car fraud lawyer.   Mr. DePetris has represented many car buyers against new and used car dealerships.   Don’t take a chance waiting on your claim – why not get a no obligation phone consultation about your rights from an experienced Camden County car fraud lawyer?  Did a dealer misrepresent the mechanical condition of a used car?   Did a dealer fail to disclose, prior to sale, any material defect in the mechanical condition of a used car which is known to the used car dealer?   Did a dealer represent that a used car, or any component thereof, is free from material defects in mechanical condition at the time of sale, without having a reasonable basis for representation when made?    Did a car dealer fail to disclose, prior to sale, the existence and terms of any written warranty, service contract or repair insurance subject to transfer, known to the used car dealer, in effect and provided by a third party.   Did a dealer misrepresent the terms of any written warranty, service contract or repair insurance currently in effect on a used car provided by a person other than the used car dealer and subject to transfer.  Did a dealer fail to disclose, prior to sale, the existence & terms of any written warranty, service contract or repair insurance offered by the used car dealer in connection with the sale of a used car.   Did a car dealer misrepresent the terms of any warranty, service contract or repair insurance offered with the sale of a used car?   As an experienced Camden County car fraud lawyer, Mr. DePetris can advise you about your legal rights in these and other situations.  What if a dealer represents, prior to sale, that a used car is sold with a warranty, service contract or repair insurance when the Camden County car is sold without any warranty, service contract or repair insurance?   Or, what if a car dealer fails to disclose, prior to sale, that a used car is sold without any warranty, service contract, or repair insurance or fails to provide a clear written explanation, prior to sale, of what is meant by the term “as is,” if the used car is sold “as is.”   The law has strong remedies for car fraud victims.   


WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF CAMDEN COUNTY CAR FRAUD CASES?
In one case involving Cherry Hill Triplex, a customer named Taylor claimed that he went to Cherry Hill Triplex to purchase a Kia because of Cherry Hill Triplex's television advertisement offering to give a $8000 credit against the price of a new Kia for any used car regardless of its condition. The car plaintiff proposed to trade in was a 1999 Ford Explorer. It was owned by Patsy and Lincoln Taylor, plaintiff's parents, and was subject to a financing agreement on which the Taylors owed $12,070. With the $8000 credit advertised by Cherry Hill Triplex, the price of the Kia would be raised by $4070 to account for Cherry Hill Triplex's payment of the loan on the Explorer. Neither plaintiff nor his wife qualified for financing, but Cherry Hill Triplex's representative did not send plaintiff away. Instead, Cherry Hill Triplex's agent told plaintiff that if the Taylors purchased the Kia and plaintiff made the payments on their loan for eight months plaintiff would be permitted to transfer the loan to his name.  The following day plaintiff returned to the dealership with his parents. The Taylors signed the contract of sale, tendered their 1999 Ford and acknowledged in a separate document that their Ford had negative equity, in an amount not specified, that was included and reflected in the purchase price. Cherry Hill Triplex's general manager admitted that the Taylors agreed to pay $31,995 for a Kia that was priced between $16,700 and $16,900. The costs included in the final price were an unspecified amount for the negative equity, a $20 filing fee, $2200 for service contracts, and $89 for the dealer's preparation of the Taylors' new car. Assuming the top end of the Kia's price range, the dealer assigned in excess of $12,070 in negative equity to the Explorer, which does not reflect any value for the trade-in.   After the purchase, plaintiff and his wife took possession of the car, and they made eight monthly payments of $527.05 on the Taylors' loan by check. Thereafter, plaintiff went to Cherry Hill Triplex to have the loan transferred to his name and was told that it could not be done. Consequently, plaintiff continued to make payments on the loan until it was refinanced. He then paid the new loan until his mother paid it in full and transferred title to him.   Taylor alleged that Cherry Hill Triplex committed consumer fraud.   Cherry Hill Triplex claimed that the customer couldn’t  establish an ascertainable loss as the indirect purchaser of the Kia.  The Camden County Superior Court judge incorrectly concluded that the Consumer Fraud Act can not be construed to provide a cause of action to a person who could not have qualified to purchase the car and did not sign the papers effectuating the transaction.   Absence of privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant is not determinative if the plaintiff can establish an ascertainable loss caused by an unlawful practice.   Here, the plaintiff's allegation of unlawful practices were in connection with an indirect sale by Cherry Hill Triplex to plaintiff through parents acting on his behalf.   By plaintiff's account, he went to Cherry Hill Triplex believing that he would receive $8000 on a trade-in and was told that if his parents made the purchase and he made the payments on the loan for eight months he would be permitted to assume their obligations. Although he fulfilled these conditions, he was not permitted to assume the loan, and he continued to perform under the agreement he made with his parents to make the payments. 
A jury believing plaintiff's description of the events could find that agents of Cherry Hill Triplex sold a new car to plaintiff indirectly, through his parents who were acting as his agents, by falsely advertising the value of a trade-in and falsely promising to recast the loan if he paid the loan for eight months. The jurors could also find that as a consequence of Cherry Hill Triplex's false pretense and promise, plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss equivalent to the difference between the $8000 credit advertised by Cherry Hill Triplex and the value Cherry Hill Triplex gave for the 1999 Ford.  Therefore, the Appellate Division overturned the trial court finding that plaintiff had a case and it was not fatal to his case that plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement and was not legally obligated to pay the amount due. 


In another case involving Cherry Hill Triplex, the plaintiff provided the used car dealer with a $500 deposit for the privilege of driving a vehicle for a few days before deciding whether to purchase. Plaintiff returned the vehicle but Cherry Hill Triplex failed to return the $500 deposit, despite repeated calls and requests for eleven days, causing plaintiff to commence this action pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act. Ultimately, the money was returned thirteen days after suit was filed, a total of twenty-four days after the vehicle was returned. At the conclusion of a nonjury trial, the judge held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate Cherry Hill Triplex engaged in an unlawful act and sustained no ascertainable loss; he also viewed plaintiff's filing of suit as inappropriate because her attorney failed to first make a demand for payment.   The trial court’s decision was incorrect and the Appellate Division Court reversed the trial court decision.  Plaintiff visited Cherry Hill Triplex in Cherry Hill on Saturday, August 29, 2009, and expressed interest in a used BMW. Morris Harland, a salesman, allowed her to take the car home for the weekend if she provided a $500 refundable deposit. Plaintiff agreed to return the following Monday on the understanding that, if she liked it, the parties would negotiate an agreement or, if she was no longer interested, her deposit would be returned. Plaintiff then provided defendant with the $500 deposit by way of a debit card before leaving with the vehicle for the remainder of the weekend.  Plaintiff returned the vehicle to defendant on Monday, August 31, 2009.  Cherry Hill Triplex, however, did not immediately return the deposit. Instead, the used car manager told plaintiff she "would have a check within five business days." On September 4, 2009, in response to plaintiff's inquiries, another employee, Lucy Valcarcel, emailed plaintiff stating: "I relayed the message to Morris [Harland]. He said that he told you it takes 3-5 business days. Please get in contact with Morris if you have any other questions regarding this matter." On September 7, 2009, Harland instructed plaintiff that she should no longer expect a check, and that the charge on her debit card would be reversed within forty-eight hours. When that time passed, plaintiff engaged counsel to pursue her rights.  On September 11, 2009, plaintiff’s attorney filed a complaint alleging defendant's violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.   Cherry Hill Triplex received service of process on September 23, 2009, and, the next day, plaintiff's bank account was credited $500.  A nonjury trial occurred on February 8, 2010. Plaintiff called Harland as a witness and testified on her own behalf.   Cherry Hill Triplex called Pat Warren, defendant's office manager, as a witness.   Harland denied ever having a conversation with Valcarcel instructing her to tell plaintiff she would receive the refund in three to five days, as Valcarcel represented in her email. Regarding refunds, he stated that if a customer provides a deposit by card, it gets refunded to the card, and if the deposit is paid in cash, it is refunded with a check. He testified that in the five years he had worked for Cherry Hill Triplex, deposits had been returned to customers in as little as five days and as long as thirty days.   Plaintiff testified about the promises made to her regarding the deposit as well as the bank fees she incurred because of the slow return of her deposit. Plaintiff testified she lives "paycheck-to-paycheck like most Americans" and that without the deposit she had insufficient funds to meet her obligations. On cross-examination, plaintiff acknowledged she was refunded the $41 in fees charged by her bank less than twenty-four hours after they were imposed.  Warren testified without elaboration that the process of making a refund to a debit card normally takes "20 to 30 days" and that, in the present case, an extra delay occurred because of defendant's "new computer system, so . . . the way we look at the information is a lot different than we had back prior to the new system." Warren denied the refund was hurried by the lawsuit, suggesting -- we suppose -- that it was just a coincidence that the refund was returned the day after Cherry Hill Triplex was served with plaintiff's summons and complaint.   The Camden County Superior Court judge ruled in Cherry Hill Triplex favor, setting the tone of his decision by initially editorializing that:  “only in America does this happen. A $500 item not being returned in a couple of weeks and we call a lawyer.”  The judge discussed how "some lawyers" would have first written to defendant requesting the deposit's return rather than filing suit, and that he was "amazed" by the fact "that a lawsuit was filed for this $500 deposit rather than a phone call being made or a letter being written to the other side."  The judge also described that the transaction was "not even close to a sale," but merely a tactic of a "good salesman" in exchanging a weekend drive of the car for a $500 refundable deposit. The judge found that because plaintiff used a debit card, there was a "procedure" involved to return her money and that if she had used cash, it would have been different. The judge said this was not a "policy case" because Cherry Hill Triplex had no policy on refunds, again iterating that the circumstances just reflect the type of thing that a "good salesman" would do. He declared that the lawsuit was not "absolutely necessary" and "a letter would have sufficed" to end the dispute.  The judge also found that plaintiff had not suffered an ascertainable loss because "[s]he got her money back." Although he recognized that plaintiff "should have gotten it back perhaps a little sooner," he rejected the claim that she had suffered any damage.  The judge also rejected the contention that Cherry Hill Triplex had misrepresented the time within which the deposit would be returned; he found that a response by the salesman that "it will take a few days" was "of course not" a "misrepresentation in the true sense" and that he did not "see this as a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act." The judge then concluded in the way in which he began, with his commentary that "[n]obody talks to one another . . .[;] [e]verybody sues."    The Appellate Division reversed the Camden County Superior Court judge, explaining that the Consumer Fraud Act imposes liability on any person who uses any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission.  The Camden County Superior Court judge mistakenly dismissed plaintiff's action because he found defendant did not engage in unlawful conduct and plaintiff did not sustain an ascertainable loss. In essence, he also mistakenly determined that plaintiff's failure to make an additional demand for the refund prior to suit barred her claim.  That is, there was no dispute that plaintiff was permitted to take the car for a few days in exchange for a $500 deposit, and there was no dispute that the parties agreed the deposit would be returned to plaintiff after the vehicle's return. It was not disputed that the vehicle was returned on August 31, 2009, and the deposit was not returned to plaintiff until September 24, 2009. Neither of Cherry Hill Triplex 's representatives who testified disputed anything plaintiff said in her testimony. Harland testified that some customers in these circumstances are not even asked to leave deposits and that, for those who do, the time for the return of the deposit can range from a few days to a month. He had no explanation for the variations in the time for return. And, when asked why it took so long for defendant to return the $500 deposit to plaintiff, Warren testified that the delay was apparently caused by defendant's new computer system. The matter was decided based on the assumption that all these facts were true and undisputed.   The Appellate Division rejected the judge's conclusion that defendant did not engage in unlawful conduct. The Consumer Fraud Act not only prohibits fraud and misrepresentations but unconscionable commercial practices as well since it is not necessary to show actual deceit or a fraudulent act; any unconscionable commercial practice is prohibited.  The undisputed facts leave no doubt that Cherry Hill Triplex engaged in an unconscionable commercial practice by holding plaintiff’s deposit for so long. It was undisputed that Cherry Hill Triplex held the deposit for twenty-four days, an unreasonable period of time in these circumstances. We doubt Cherry Hill Triplex would have been as understanding as it believes plaintiff should have been, if plaintiff had retained possession of the vehicle for as long as Cherry Hill Triplex held her deposit.  Many people live paycheck-to-paycheck and, for many, $500 is a significant sum.   Cherry Hill Triplex had immediate access to plaintiff's $500; she did not pay by check but provided that sum by way of a debit card, providing Cherry Hill Triplex with immediate access to the funds. Even though the parties had no express agreement on the time within which the money would be returned, concepts of good faith and fair dealing imposed on Cherry Hill Triplex a duty to return the deposit commensurate with the time within which it was originally received. In short, good faith and fair dealing required that plaintiff's bank account be reimbursed as quickly as it was depleted to fund the deposit. If Cherry Hill Triplex truly had computer issues, as testified by Warren, then defendant should have given plaintiff a check or taken steps to provide her with cash when she returned the car. Any delay beyond a few days was unreasonable and a delay greater than a week or two in these circumstances is indefensible.  The conclusion that plaintiff suffered no ascertainable loss is also erroneous because it flies in the face of the undisputed fact that, when plaintiff filed suit, Cherry Hill Triplex possessed her $500 deposit.  The Consumer Fraud Act requires only that the plaintiff have suffered an ascertainable loss at the time suit is filed.   If the plaintiff was suffering an ascertainable loss at the time of the filing of suit, as here, the Consumer Fraud Act does not insist the loss continue thereafter or until the time of trial as Cherry Hill Triplex seems to argue. In short, defendant's reimbursement of the $500 approximately two weeks after suit was filed did not destroy or moot plaintiff's cause of action.  To hold otherwise would defeat the central protective purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act by permitting a violator to compensate the consumer any time up to the entry of judgment in order to avoid liability for treble damages or any of the other remedies provided by the law.  We refuse the invitation to water down the Consumer Fraud Act by endorsing this approach, which was championed by Cherry Hill Triplex and adopted by the judge.  At the time the complaint was filed, Cherry Hill Triplex remained in possession of plaintiff's $500 deposit. That amount was "definite, certain and measurable" and thus, "ascertainable" within the meaning of the CFA. The Camden County Superior Court judge's contrary conclusion was erroneous.    The Appellate Division Court also found troubling those aspects of the judge's decision that revealed a preoccupation with what he believed was plaintiff's precipitous commencement of suit. At the outset of his opinion, the judge warned that he was "going to make some comments which some of you may not like to hear," and then immediately followed with these statements:  “This . . . case involves a $500 deposit. The plaintiff, after not getting her $500 deposit back in a couple of weeks, called a lawyer. And as I said, some of these comments are not going to be appreciated by either side. But I say, only in America does this happen. A $500 item not being returned in a couple of weeks and we call a lawyer. It's hard for me to grasp, quite honestly, that this rises to that significance that you would say, geez, I better get a lawyer to get my $500…..Now, what would lawyers -- some lawyers do? They would write a letter to the other side and say, hey, my client didn't get her $500 back, kindly send it to me. And it would be done, the $500 would be sent back and that would be the end of the case. The lawyer wouldn't have to spend all this time filing a lawsuit. The other side's lawyer wouldn't have to spend all this time defending, filing a brief, a memorandum et cetera.  That's what amazes me today about some of these lawsuits that I see so frequently in this court. This is the special civil part court. It's easy to file lawsuits here. The lawsuits generally don't involve lots of money. And so even though I am amazed at the fact that a lawsuit was filed for this $500 deposit rather than a phone call being made or a letter being written to the other side, in this case the plaintiff's lawyer decided that he was going to file a lawsuit, maybe because he could argue it's a consumer fraud action and seek treble damages and seek the assessment of attorney's fees. Maybe that had something to do with the filing of this lawsuit for $500.”   Contrary to the Camden County Superior Court judge's holding, the plain language of the Consumer Fraud Act does not impose upon any putative plaintiff the requirement that he or she first seek a remedy directly from the offending merchant and makes no demand upon plaintiff to try to obtain a refund first as a pre-condition of instituting suit.  Otherwise, a merchant could rely on the pre-suit demand requirement by "boldly imposing inflated charges at no risk, and planning to refund the overcharges only when asked."   Here, the judge determined that plaintiff was required to have her attorney demand a refund before commencing suit. If that conclusion was correct, the Consumer Fraud Act would limit relief by making it available only to those consumers who are alert enough to ask for a refund, while allowing the offending merchant to reap a windfall.   To the contrary, the Legislature intended to "empower consumers who seek to secure relief for themselves and for others who may not be aware that they have been victimized. Because reading a pre-suit demand for refund requirement into the Consumer Fraud Act would thwart those salutary purposes, the Appellate Division Court would not endorse it.   The judge's admonitions regarding the timing of plaintiff’s suit and the size of the amount in controversy have no place in this matter. Imposing the obligation on a consumer fraud claimant of making a pre-suit demand or weighing the sufficiency of the proofs in light of the relatively minimal amount of damages would deprive the Consumer Fraud Act of its deterrent effect.  Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment that Cherry Hill Triplex violated the Act by retaining her $500 deposit for an unreasonable period of time. At the time she filed suit, plaintiff had incurred a $500 loss and, therefore, had an actionable claim for three times that amount, i.e., $1500. Because Cherry Hill Triplex reimbursed her $500 after suit was commenced, plaintiff's damages were reduced to $1000 and she is, therefore, entitled to judgment in that amount. In addition, the Consumer Fraud Act permits the imposition of an award of counsel fees to a prevailing party.    The Camden County Superior Court judge was mistakenly critical about the manner in which plaintiff's counsel proceeded with this suit.


If you were a victim of car dealer fraud, don’t take chances with your Camden County Consumer lawsuit.   Consult with an experienced Camden County car fraud lawyer.


AN EXPERIENCED CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWYER FOR HANDLING CAMDEN COUNTY CONSUMER LAWSUITS AND DISPUTES FOR BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
Let an experienced Camden County consumer lawyer represent you or your business in your Camden County consumer lawsuit.   Paul DePetris has represented Camden County residents, home buyers, home sellers, home repair customers, home repair contractors, home inspectors, real estate brokers, real estate agents, junk yard dealers, automobile purchasers and owners, new and used car dealers, banks and automotive lenders, boat purchasers and owners, watercraft purchasers and owners and marinas in consumer fraud lawsuits and other consumer lawsuits and consumer disputes.  Mr. DePetris appeared in court in lawsuits involving consumer fraud lawsuits and other types of consumer lawsuits. As an experienced Camden County consumer fraud lawyer, Mr. DePetris has mediated, arbitrated and tried consumer fraud lawsuits and other types of consumer lawsuits.  In addition to representing Camden County residents in a variety of consumer lawsuits and defending businesses in a variety of consumer lawsuits, Paul DePetris provides consulting services to law firms handing consumer lawsuits and defending consumer lawsuits.  Paul DePetris has represented the following persons and businesses in Camden County consumer lawsuits.  Mr. DePetris has also taught hundreds of lawyers and nonlawyers about consumer law in consumer fraud classes.  Mr. DePetris is also the author of the following publications about consumer fraud:  New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act & Forms (New Jersey Law Journal Books); Learned Professionals, Licensed Semiprofessionals and the Consumer Fraud Act:  The Origins of the Licensed Professionals’ Doctrine (New Jersey Lawyer, Oct. 2008); Liability For Consumer Fraud In Real Estate Transactions (New Jersey Law Journal, March 18, 2009).   Don’t give up your rights or take a chance in ruining your case!  Let an experienced Camden County Consumer Fraud lawyer help you understand your rights under the law.   


Website Builder