Failure to Meet Contractual Timeframe not a Violation of the CFA

New Jersey Residential home improvement contractors are required to provide clients with an estimated timeframe for the completion of the work.  In a recent unpublished case from the Appellate Division, a contractor provided the homeowner with a 45-day time period from the date of the contract to complete an addition.  However, due permit delays and other reasons, the work did not begin until months later.  Despite the contractual time-frame not being met, the court found that there was no violation of the CFA, stating that the homeowners, "were aware that ... [c]onstruction began approximately 120 days from the contract date, yet defendants did not cancel the contract or allege a breach at that time."  Furthermore, although a change order for additional work was never signed by the homeowner, a regulatory violation of the CFA, the court found that since there was no ascertainable loss suffered by the homeowner as a result of the regulatory violation, the contractor was not liable for damages under the CFA.  (MYCWHome, LLC v. White, et. al.)