states. Any such conflict must be determined on an issue-by-issue basis. Veazey v. Doremus, supra., at 248, 510 A.2d 1187; Gantes v. Kason Corp., supra., at 484, 679 A.2d 106, Fu v. Fu, supra., at 118, 733 A.2d 1133, Erny v. Estate of Merola, supra., at 100, 792 A.2d 1208. A review of the consumer fraud statutes of the various states, and the cases decided thereunder demonstrates the existence of numerous actual conflicts on various issues between provisions of the NJCFA and those of the statutes enacted by other state es under the NJCFA in connection with the purchase of goods and services for commercial or business uses, see, e.g., City Check Cashing v. The National State Bank, 244 N.J.Super. 304, 309, 582 A.2d 809, (App.Div.), certif. den. 122 N.J. 389, 585 A.2d 391, (1990) (<HOLDING>); Hundred East Credit Corp. v. Eric Schuster,
holding that the sovereign immunity afforded to tribes extends to their governmental organizations and business entities holding that with respect to tortious interference recognized standards of business ethics and business customs and practices are pertinent holding in age discrimination case under adea that same considerations are pertinent when deciding single employer issue for public entities as for private entities and applying nlrb test to resolve the question noting that where government entities are concerned court also must keep constitutional separation of powers issues in mind holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment holding that 1 the njcfa applies to corporations and other business entities when they are acting as consumers because business entities are considered a person under the act and no reason exists to treat it differently and 2 to be a consumer in respect to a transaction the business entity must be one who uses the goods and thereby diminishes their economic utility