Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: Is a plaintiff is entitled to damages for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Damages; Benefit-of-the-bargain or out-of-pocket |
| Jurisdiction: | New Jersey |
| Cited Cases: | 661 A.2d 1202; 682 A.2d 1241; 687 A.2d 778; 317 A.2d 68; 27 F. Supp. 2d 543; 49 S.E.2d 510; 229 N.C. 262; 98 A.2d 679; 657 A.2d 420; 502 A.2d 106; 243 N.J. Super. 509; 27 N.J. Super. 13; 107 N.C. App. 252; 495 S.E.2d 920; 349 A.2d 574; 581 A.2d 91; 141 N.J. Super. 365; 740 A.2d 653; 227 N.J. Super. 331; 986 S.W.2d 364; 148 N.J. 582; 419 S.E.2d 597; 691 A.2d 350; 137 N.J. Super. 518 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 08/01/2000 |
A court must choose between different methods of calculating a Plaintiff’s damages, two such methods are: “benefit-of-the-bargain or out-of-pocket.” In a nutshell, the benefit-of-the-bargain rule allows the plaintiff to recover the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of the closing and the value it would have had if the defendants’ representations had been true. Zeliff v. Sabatino, 27 N.J. Super. 13, 17, 98 A.2d 679, 681-82 (App. Div. 1953), rev’d, 15 N.J. 70, 104 A.2d 54 (1954).
The out-of-pocket rule allows the plaintiff to recover the difference between the actual value of the property purchased and the amount spent in obtaining it. See Wildstein v. Tru Motors, Inc., 227 N.J. Super. 331, 547 A.2d 340 (App. Div. 1988), and Correa v. Maggiore, 196 N.J. Super. 273, 482 A.2d 192 (App. Div. 1984), for the proposition that in the context of an out-of-pocket measure of damages, a plaintiff cannot recover anything even when there has been fraud if the property that is the subject of the fraud is worth as much or more than the amount paid.210:25–211:7). The supreme court held, there is no need to “debate the outer limits of the duty to disclose.” Strawn v. Canuso, 140 N.J. 43, 57, 657 A.2d 420, 427 (1995). Additionally, Correa did not involve the Consumer Fraud Act, so any pronunciation of the appropriate calculation of damages in that cases is incomparable to the present question.
For example, in Chattin […]