SPADE V. SELECT COMFORT
Issue: Class Actions
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
- 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?
- 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?
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.
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: