Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.

In this case, defendants, a carpet department store and its president, sold plaintiff-customer a defective carpet at a warehouse clearance sale in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, *7N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20. The trial court determined that plaintiffs “ascertainable loss” was the replacement value of the carpet, not the purchase price. The court, however, found that plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence establishing replacement value to warrant a jury trial and, therefore, the ascertainable loss was simply the price paid by plaintiff. Although the Appellate Division agreed that…