pleaded a claim under the NJCFA, the facts, as alleged, tell another story. As noted above, to fall under the purview of the NJCFA the “merchandise” must be offered “directly or indirectly to the public for sale.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8 — 1(c) (emphasis added). New Jersey courts have indicated that “ ‘the public,’ as used in the this definition of ‘merchandise,’ refers to ‘the public at large.’ ” Princeton Healthcare Sys. v. Netsmart New York, Inc., 422 N.J.Super. 467, 473, 29 A.3d 361 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2011) (quoting Finderne Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Barrett, 402 N.J.Super. 546, 570, 955 A.2d 940 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2008); Marascio v. Campanella, 298 N.J.Super. 491, 499, 689 A.2d 852 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1997)) (citing Kugler v. Romain, 58 N.J. 522, 536, 279 A.2d 640 (1971) (<HOLDING>); 539 Absecon Blvd., L.L. C. v. Shan
holding that equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud misrepresentation or affirmative deception holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt recognizing that the njcfa is directed primarily at deception misrepresentation and unconscionable practices engaged in by professional sellers seeking mass distribution of many types of consumer goods holding that defendant had engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the njcfa by violating the new jersey administrative code