Channel Companies, Inc. v. Britton
| Citation | 400 A.2d 1221,167 N.J.Super. 417 |
| Parties | CHANNEL COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Robert BRITTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1979 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Pressler & Pressler, Pine Brook, for plaintiff-appellant (Francis M. Taylor, Pine Brook, on the brief).
No brief submitted on behalf of defendant-respondent.
Before Judges FRITZ and MORGAN.
Does the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 Et seq., subject a consumer to liability for treble damages for fraudulent conduct in connection with a purchase? That is the question posed by this appeal. The trial judge answered this question in the negative summarily dismissing the second count of the complaint premised upon violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Acting upon defendant buyer's admission of liability for the purchase price of the goods, it entered judgment in plaintiff's favor for the full amount of the debt. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
The Consumer Fraud Act has as its essential purpose the protection of consumers by eliminating sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise and real estate. The legislative concern was the victimized consumer, not the occasionally victimized seller. Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 270-271, 390 A.2d 566 (1978). Although the act is not explicitly so limited, all of its provisions unmistakably so indicate. For example, acts made unlawful thereunder can be restrained by injunction or appointment of a receiver. All of the specifically described "unlawful practices" concern only sellers. See, E. g., N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.1, 56:8-2.4, 56:8-2.5, 56:8-2.6. Such provisions clearly evidence the Legislature's purpose to make sellers, not consumers, the target of its mandate.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the matter of Curriden, Case No. 05-38352/JHW (Bankr.N.J. 9/6/2007)
...connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate." N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. In Channel Companies, Inc. v. Britton, 167 N.J. Super. 417, 418, 400 A.2d 1221 (App. Div. 1979), the New Jersey Appellate Division determined that a victimized seller Page 22 impose liability unde......
-
Chulsky v. Offices
...of merchandise....” Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp., 150 N.J. 255, 263, 696 A.2d 546 (1997) (quoting Channel Cos. v. Britton, 167 N.J.Super. 417, 418, 400 A.2d 1221 (App.Div.1979)). “To fully advance its remedial purposes, [the Court] construe[s] the Act liberally in favor of consumers.......
-
Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of America
...consumers "by eliminating sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise and real estate." Channel Cos. v. Britton, 167 N.J.Super. 417, 418, 400 A.2d 1221 (App.Div.1979); see Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 271, 390 A.2d 566 (1978). It [t]he act, use or employm......
-
Yourman by & through Yourman v. People's Sec. Life, Civil Action No. 97-1196 (WHW).
...enacted to "eliminat[e] sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise and real estate." Channel Cos. v. Britton, 167 N.J.Super. 417, 418, 400 A.2d 1221 (App.Div.1979). As such, it [t]he act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception,......