In response to two questions certified from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on April 16, our Supreme Court, in Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., held that the violation of a regulation, promulgated under the Consumer Fraud Act, constituted a violation of a “clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller” for purposes of the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18, but that the consumer who suffered no monetary loss or other “adverse consequences” resulting from the violation was not an “aggrieved consumer” entitled to relief under the act. Specifically, the court held that a violation of a regulation promulgated under the authority of the Consumer Fraud Act which addresses provisions regarding the delivery of household furniture within contracts for sale the delivery of household furniture may, by itself, constitute the violation of a “clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of the seller” for purposes of the act, but further held that “a consumer receives a contract that includes language prohibited by [the regulation] but who suffers no monetary or other harm as a result of that noncompliance, is not an ‘aggrieved consumer’ entitled to a remedy under the TCCWNA. 56:12-17.”

The regulations in question required, with certain bold face print, that the contract or sales document for household furniture provide the delivery date and a provision that if the merchandise is not delivered by that date and the consumer had the right to cancel the order with a full refund or of accepting the delivery “at a specific later date.” The regulation also prohibited language to the effect that all sales were “final,“ could not be “cancell[ed]” or the like, and that any violation of the provisions were subject to sanctions under the Consumer Fraud Act.