omissions – Pete's Take

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) has long been a favorite of plaintiff's attorneys, but there is another consumer protection statute that is rapidly gaining on the CFA in popularity — the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA) (or, as it is sometimes awkwardly pronounced, "ta-KWA-na"). Although it has been around for thirty years, case law interpreting the TCCWNA is still in its infancy because the act has only recently become a common claim in putative consumer class actions. In a new, unpublished decision, Matijakovich v. P.C. Richard & Son, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressed one unsettled aspect of the still developing body of case law surrounding the TCCWNA.

First, a brief primer on the TCCWNA, which provides, in part:

No seller . . . shall in the course of his business offer to any consumer or prospective consumer or enter into any written consumer contract . . . or display any written . . . notice or sign . . . which includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller . . . as established by State or Federal law at the time the offer is made . . . or the . . . notice or sign is given or displayed.

Its purpose is to prevent deceptive practices in consumer contracts by prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties. To state a claim under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that it is a consumer; (2) that defendant is a seller; (3) that the seller offered a consumer contract; and (4) that the consumer contract contained a provision that violated a legal right of the consumer or a responsibility of the seller. Any party found to have violated the TCCWNA is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $100, actual damages, or both, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.

Continue reading “Alleged Omission In Consumer Contract Does Not Violate New Jersey Consumer Protection Statute” →

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

One of the most ridiculously entertaining movies of the late-1970’s/early-1980’s was “The Warriors.” You need to watch it to fully appreciate how ridiculous and entertaining it was but it involves a running battle between street gangs through a post-apocalyptic-looking New York City. (To give just a glimpse of how ridiculous it was, the members of one of the gangs, the “Hi Hats,” were dressed like mimes.) The quote in the title of this post is one of the two most well-known lines from the movie (bonus points if you know the other one, answer below).

I was reminded of “The Warriors” when I read the opening sentences of the Appellate Division’s recent decision in Cannon v. Palisades Insurance Company:

“This case involves a street fight between two groups of combatants, some of whom were employed as telemarketers with two local companies. Not surprisingly, the challenge to fight, the acceptance of that challenge, and negotiations over the combat site were all done telephonically.”

A gang of telemarketers could have easily fit into “The Warriors.” Regardless, with an opening sentence like that, I had to read the rest of the opinion. Ultimately, the facts of Cannon are unique and not likely to be useful to you in any future matter. But, that doesn't mean you should not read on, and read the decision yourself if you have the time.

Continue reading ““Warriors . . . come out to playyyyyy” (or “What Are The Insurance Implications Of Driving Your Mom’s Car To A Street Fight?”)” →