Return to Browsing

7 N.J.A.R. 48

Consumer Affairs, Division of v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 7 N.J.A.R. 48
Decision Date: 1981
Agency: DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Synopsis: The Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs charged that respondent had violated N.J.A.C. 13:45A-2.2(a)(7)(iv) by distributing an advertisement which allegedly compared vehicles offered for sale by respondent to the dealer's cost or inventory price. After a request for a hearing, the matter was assigned to an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge found that respondent had advertised many of its cars to be 'priced well below dealer invoice' which violated the intent of the regulation which was to preclude a dealer from advertising in such a manner as to lead a prospective customer to believe that the dollar amount shown is the actual, final cost to the dealer for the vehicle. The judge rejected respondent's argument that the regulation was unconstitutional noting the State's interest in regu- lating advertising which is inherently misleading. Accordingly, the judge ordered a penalty of $1,600. Upon review, the judge's initial decision was accepted by the Division of Consumer Affairs. Alan S. Pralgever, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Eric L. Chase, Esq., for respondent (Martin G. Margolis, attor- ney). Initial Decision
Citation Tracker adopted-Div. of Consumer Affairs; affirmed -193 N.J. Super 613 (App. Div. 1984); affirmed-100 N.J. 57 (1985) [Updated through 1991]