Legal Opinion
Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided July 18, 1985PublishedCited by 81 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
GARIBALDI, J.
This appeal concerns alleged violations by Arrow Pontiac, Inc. (Arrow) of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 through -38, and in particular the .implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-2.2(a)7iv, which makes unlawful
[t]he use in any advertisement of a comparison to the dealer’s cost or inventory price.
The critical issue here is whether there is sufficient credible evidence for the Division of Consumer Affairs (Division) to find that Arrow’s advertisement was misleading and deceptive to the consuming public. Two attendant questions…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
- Greenwood v. State Police Training CenterSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
- Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.