Legal Opinion · Dissent

Czar, Inc. v. Heath

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 18, 2009No. A-114 September Term 2007Published

1DissentJustice Rivera-Soto

In order to shoehorn construction work on a new home that had not been completed, permitted, or even ever occupied into the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, the majority concludes that “plaintiff, which neither acted as the general contractor nor qualified as a builder of new homes, was engaged in the business of home improvements and subject to the remedies of the CFA.” Ante at 197, 966 A.2d at 1009. According to the majority, the CFA and the New Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act (the New Homeowners Warranty or HOW Act), N.J.S.A. 46:3B-1 to -20, are “designed to…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  2. Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  3. Cherry Hill Manor Associates v. FaugnoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  4. Daidone v. Buterick BulkheadingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  5. Bd. of Education of City of Asbury Park v. HoekSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API