order to be deemed unlawful. Def.’s Br. 36; N.J: Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2. Santander argues that because the handling of the Ministrel-li Account and the false notarizations were services requested by the Non-Party Conspirators and not by the Debtors, Santan-der’s conduct was not made “in connection with the subsequent performance of such person.” The Court finds Santander’s narrow interpretation of the CFA and its elevation of form over substance to be inconsistent with the policies underlying the Act. Furthermore, New Jersey courts have held that the CFA imposes no direct privity requirement on potential plaintiffs and that certain indirect relationships between a buyer and a seller may give rise to a CFA claim. See Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 207 N.J. 557, 579, 25 A.3d 1103 (2011) (<HOLDING>). With regard to Santander’s relationship with
holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that contractual privity between the buyer and seller was not necessary for a cfa claim