Issue: Class Actions
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Certified Questions:

  1. Does a violation of the Furniture Delivery Regulations alone constitute a violation of a clearly established right or responsibility of the seller under the TCCWNA and thus provides a basis for relief under the TCCWNA?

  2. Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply with the Furniture Delivery Regulations, but has not suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an “aggrieved consumer” under the TCCWNA?

RLC's Position:
The RLC filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of New Jersey to thoroughly and clearly review New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act and statutory construct of the meaning of “aggrieved” in order to supplement the party’s brief. The brief concluded that a plaintiff cannot seek penalties under TCCWNA unless the person has been harmed by an alleged violation of the statute; to hold otherwise would render an important word in the statute meaningless. 

Case Outcome:
The court held that a consumer who receives a contract that includes language prohibited by New Jersey Law, 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. 

Procedural History and Case Documents: