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).
