## Facts

- Rhonda Bosland purchased a new 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Warnock Dodge, Inc. and paid the full cash price stated on the Retail Buyer’s Order.
- The Retail Buyer’s Order included a $117 charge labeled only as a “Registration Fee.”
- Bosland later determined New Jersey title and registration fees at the time were less than $117 and inferred the charge included an undisclosed documentary service fee.
- Bosland did not request a refund or correction from the dealer before filing suit.
- Bosland filed a putative class action alleging (1) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), (2) violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA), and (3) unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer alleging an unlawful overcharge under the CFA must request a refund from the merchant before filing a civil action.
2. Whether an alleged overcharge, paid without objection at the time of sale, can constitute an “ascertainable loss” sufficient to plead a CFA claim.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held the CFA does not require a consumer to request a refund from the merchant as a prerequisite to filing suit.
- The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the trial court’s dismissal.
- The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- The CFA authorizes a private action by any person who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of an unlawful practice; courts may not add extra preconditions to suit that the Legislature did not enact.
- No pre-suit “refund demand,” “opportunity to cure,” or exhaustion-like requirement is implied by the CFA’s text or structure.
- An overcharge alleged to result from a regulatory violation in pricing or fee disclosure may qualify as an ascertainable loss, even if the consumer paid the charge at the point of sale without contemporaneous objection.
- The CFA’s remedial and deterrent design—treble damages and fee-shifting—reflects a policy of strong private enforcement that would be weakened by judicially created procedural hurdles.
- Imposing a refund-demand prerequisite would create practical and doctrinal complications, including in putative class actions, without statutory support.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that consumers may sue under the CFA for an alleged unlawful overcharge without first seeking a refund from the merchant, rejecting a judicially imposed pre-suit demand requirement and allowing the case to proceed on remand.


Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 964 A.2d 741 (N.J. 2009)