The overriding theme of the past term with respect to commercial law has to do with the expansiveness of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq. In three separate cases the Court eschewed opportunities to limit the scope of the CFA, and instead broadly interpreted that act to allow for its application.
The issue in Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc. 197 N.J. 543 (2009),was whether a plaintiff, prior to filing a lawsuit under CFA, must first request a refund of a claimed overcharge from a merchant. The trial court had held that a plaintiff must first demand the refund, and had dismissed Bosland’s case for having failed to do so.( See Ronald Grayzel, Tort Law, 197 N.J.L.J. 769).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
