Q: How to deal with a scammer who claimed to be a general contractor, then took our money (& 5 others) & disappeared?

A: contact county prosecutor and consumer affairs

hire attorney for suit.

Legal Brief in Support of Treble Damages and Attorneys Fees under the Consumer Fraud Act

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act provides that any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or intentional omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or admission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with a subsequent performance of such person, is declared to be an unlawful practice. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. The Consumer Affairs office protects the rights of consumers.

Under the Consumer Fraud Act, it is not necessary to show actual deceit or fraudulent act; any unconscionable commercial practice is prohibited. Skeer v. EMK Motors, Inc., 187 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div. 1982). The sale or advertisement of real estate is also subject to the consumer Fraud Act. Even products dispensed or supplied by licensed professional are covered. If you win, the court must award treble damages.

In the case at bar, __________________ The basis for the Consumer Fraud Act is to put teeth consumer rights. Treble damages and attorneys fees are the staple of the statute.

An omission of any "material fact," for purpose of Consumer Fraud Act as applied to real estate transactions, is not confined to conditions on premises. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. Strawn v. Canuso (1995)

In Lemedelledo v. Beneficial Management, 150 N.J. 255 (1998), the Supreme Court held the Consumer Fraud Act was intended to apply to a financial institution's sale of insurance in conjunction with its lending. In an emphatic declaration, the court left no doubt of its desire to bring the insurance industry within the ambit of the Consumer Fraud Act.

The court wrote, "Our reading of the CFA (Consumer Fraud Act) convinces us that the statute's language is ample enough to encompass the sale of insurance policies as goods and services that are marketed to consumers."

The Lemedelledo case was a class action complaining of the practice of including unrequested and unexpected premiums for credit insurance as additional charges for a college loan taken out for the education of a family member.

There, it was contended that a financial institution that was setting up a $2,000 college loan for a student required the applicant to purchase credit insurance premiums to cover the potential default of the loan applicant. It was alleged that misrepresentations were made regarding the insurance because its purpose was primarily to protect the lender, not the borrower. The Supreme Court referred to the practice as "loan packing" and determined the act evinced a clear legislative intent that its provisions be applied liberally and broadly to accomplish its remedial purpose to root out consumer fraud.

Lemedelledo involved a financial institution selling insurance. The institution itself was not an insurance carrier, nor were misrepresentations made regarding what the terms of the insurance set forth. Rather, the alleged consumer fraud offense was the "loan packing" that compelled purchase of insurance not desired by the consumer seeking only a loan.