plus an additional $80,000 for the new engines. Plaintiff wished to prove far greater damages, but was limited by the court. 5 The trial judge apparently rejected the consumer fraud claim against OY because the sale of the GM engines by OY to plaintiff was not a “mass distribution" problem addressed in DiBemardo, supra. That determination is too restrictive a reading of DiBemardo which held merely that the Act was not intended to apply "to the isolated sale of a single family residence by its owner." 206 N.J.Super. at 376. This case, on the other hand, deals with a commercial seller and a mass produced engine, a large number of which plaintiff was prepared to show have also had engine failures. See also New Mea Const. Corp. v. Harper, 203 N.J.Super. 486, 501-503 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>). 6 Since the claims against GM and J & T were
holding rehabilitation act applicable holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective holding the act specifically applicable to a custom builder who uses substandard material in the construction of a house and stating generally that the act was not intended to provide an exemption for a custom builder