 NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT  (against LG Korea and LG USA)   1.  Refund of the purchase price of all of the Affected Products purchased by the Class  Members;   1.  Rescission of the purchase and return of the purchase price;   1.  Restitution and disgorgement of profits;   2.  Treble Damages;   2.  Prejudgment and Post judgment Interest;   2.  Consequential Damages;   22.  On information and belief, LG Korea has been engaged in the business of  designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing LG brand  appliances in the United States since 2001.  LG USA operates as LG Korea’s exclusive seller of  LG products in the United States.  LG AL operates as LG Korea’s exclusive after-market servicer  11  of LG products sold in the United States.   23.  LG Korea is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of air conditioners and other  appliances. LG has designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, sold, and warranted air  conditioner product lines, including the Affected Products.   24.  LG claims that it “places the utmost priority on consumer safety.”  LG claims that  “[F]rom the design stage to a product’s usage and disposal, [it] continuously looks for ways in  which to improve product safety to prevent any risk to a consumer’s health or property caused by  a faulty product.”  LG claims that “it is continuing to improve process management and quality so  that customers can feel more safety with product made by LG Electronics.”  LG also claims it  maintains “Customer Satisfaction” by “always keeping up with which service items customers  want most, as it continues to provide the best service possible.”1  According to LG, “Life’s  Good” when you purchase its products.  For purchasers of the Affected Products, life with LG  products has been far from good.  The Defects   25.  The Affected Products fail to perform as advertised because they fail to adequately  heat and cool as designed.  The Affected Products prematurely fail and produce various fault code  errors that require repair, and, in certain environments, the Affected Products are not adequately  designed to properly handle humidity.  They also produce excessive condensation and moisture.     26.  The defects leave the Affected Products unusable because they fail to function as  designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold.   27.  After discovering problems with the units, consumers repeatedly have attempted to  have the units repaired by LG, LG distributors, and third-party installers to no avail.    1 (http://www.lg.com/tn_en/about-lg/sustainability/stakeholder-engagement/ customer.jsp) (last  visited September 4, 2012).  12   28.  LG failed to adequately design, manufacture, and/or test the Affected Products to  ensure that they were free from defects at the time of sale.  LG further failed to adequately inform  customers of the defects once they were known to LG.   29.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs have used their LG air conditioners in a foreseeable  manner and in the manner in which LG intended them to be used.   3.  Prejudgment and Post judgment Interest; and   3.  Such other just and equitable relief as the Court deems proper.  3.  Reasonable attorneys’ fees, filing fees, and reasonable costs of suit;   30.  The defects manifested during the expected useful life of the Affected Products  (both within and outside the applicable warranty periods), are substantially likely to prevent the  Affected Products from performing their essential function, and make it impossible for Plaintiffs  to use the Affected Products as intended.   31.  The customer would not have purchased the Affected Products had the defects  been known to them.   32.  The defects rendered the Affected Products unfit for the ordinary purpose for  which air conditioners are sold at the time LG sold them to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.   33.  The defects required, and will continue to require, replacement parts and costly  repairs to the Affected Products to the extent they can even be made operational.  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Reasonable Expectations   34.  In purchasing the Affected Products, Plaintiffs reasonably and legitimately  expected the air conditioners to operate according to their intended purpose.   35.  LG has represented, and Consumers therefore reasonably believed, that the  expected useful life of its HVAC products (like the Affected Products) is eighty-four (84)  months/seven (7) years.  Consumers do not expect that the air conditioners will be manufactured  with inherent and latent defects that results in failure well before their expected lifetime requiring  out-of-pocket expenditures to maintain and repair the units.  13   36.  Customers reasonably expected the Affected Products to effectively heat and cool  their properties during the air conditioners’ expected useful lives as marketed and represented by  LG.   37.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members reasonably expected LG to disclose the existence  of any defects that were known to LG at the time of sale, and after the time of sale, that prevented  the Affected Products from functioning properly, and to repair or replace the Affected Products  with suitable goods.   38.  As a result of the defects alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have  experienced failure of their air conditioners, did not get what they paid for, and have incurred  actual damages for attempting to repair or replace the defective Affected Products.  LG was Aware of the Defects   39.  Before it sold the Affected Products, LG knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that  the models contained defects that would cause the Affected Products to malfunction and render  them incapable of performing their intended functions.   4.  Such other just and equitable relief as the Court deems proper.   4.  Prejudgment and Post judgment Interest; and   40.  LG did not implement a plan to address the defects.  Instead, LG manufactured  and sold later models that contained the same defects.   41.  For some air conditioners that failed within the applicable warranty period, LG  suggested repairs to consumers knowing that such repairs would not address the underlying  defects and do nothing to prevent later failures.  For other air conditioners, LG routinely and  strategically blamed others (e.g., defective installation, poor maintenance, etc.) for problems it  knew, or was reckless in not knowing, directly resulted from the design and manufacturing of the  Affected Products and refused to make any effort to remedy the problem.  This was part of a  common plan and scheme to avoid disclosing or actually remedying the defects in hopes that the  14  warranty period would expire on purchasers of the Affected Products and leave them with no  remedy or recourse.   42.  For the Affected Products that LG made an apparent effort to repair, LG was aware  that its repairs would not cure the defects but would instead merely delay inevitable product  failures.  In doing so, LG intended to postpone the failures of the air conditioners until after the  expiration of the applicable warranties.  For example, LG provided replacement thermistors for  Inverter units while knowing that defective boards (a more costly replacement part) were the root  cause of the thermistor failures.  For example, for PTAC products, LG knew or should have  known in 2007 that the units contained defective boards and later that the units contained fan  motors that were undersized and would ultimately burn out.     43.  When Affected Products failed outside the warranty period, LG left the Plaintiffs  to incur out-of-pocket expenses to repair or replace components or the Affected Products as a  whole.  At times, LG also sold or provided Plaintiffs and the Class Members with defective  replacement parts.  Thus, Plaintiffs and the Class Members also incurred additional costs and  expenses to replace defective replacement parts supplied by LG that also failed.   44.  Despite knowing that the repairs it recommended would not cure the defects, LG  nonetheless convinced its customers to incur the related expenses in a concerted effort to conceal  the defects and avoid paying for labor, expensive replacement parts, and other warranted claims in  an effort to force its customers to simply give up.  LG’s Omissions and Misrepresentations   45.  LG failed to properly and adequately design, manufacture, and/or test the Affected  Products to ensure that they were free from defects.  LG knew or was reckless in not knowing of  the defects when it uniformly warranted, advertised, marketed, and sold the Affected Products to  15  Plaintiffs.    46.  LG did not disclose to its customers the fact that the defects existed at the time of  sale and that the defects would render the Affected Products unable to perform their essential  function before the end of their expected useful lives.  LG likewise did not disclose that its  recommended repairs would do nothing to cure the defects and would only, at best, briefly delay  the impact of the defects, thereby postponing failure in the Affected Products.   47.  Instead, in its uniform marketing and advertising, LG falsely represented that the  Affected Products were free from defects and that they would perform their essential function.   48.  LG knew that consumers were unaware of the defects and that they reasonably  expected the air conditioners to effectively perform their intended function.  LG also knew that  customers expected LG to disclose any defects that would prevent the air conditioners from  performing that function long before the end of their expected useful lives, and that such  disclosure would impact consumers’ decisions as to whether to purchase the Affected Products.   LG knew and intended for consumers to rely on its material misrepresentations and omissions with  regard to the defects when purchasing the Affected Products and in attempting repair efforts.   49.  As a result of LG’s uniform misrepresentations and omissions in its marketing and  advertising, Plaintiffs were led to believe that the Affected Products would operate without  defects, and Plaintiffs purchased LG air conditioners in reliance on that belief.   5.  Such other just and equitable relief as the Court deems proper.  50.  Unfortunately for consumers, LG’s continued representations that the Affected  Products were free from defects and would adequately perform as designed and built were not  true.  LG knew when it sold the Affected Products that the air conditioners would be adversely  affected by the existing defects long before the end of the air conditioners’ expected useful lives  rendering the air conditioners unable to work properly.  16   51.  LG had the capacity to, and did, systematically deceive consumers into believing  that they were purchasing air conditioners that were free from defects and could be used safely and  practically to heat and cool their properties.   52.  LG actively concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs, the Class  Members, and everyone, the true defective nature of the Affected Products, and failed to remove  the Affected Products from the marketplace or take adequate remedial action.  LG dispatched its  representatives and repeatedly represented that the Affected Products were free of defects even  though it knew when it sold the air conditioners that they contained a defect that would render the  air conditioners unable to perform their intended function.  Furthermore, LG sold and serviced the  Affected Products even though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the Affected Products  were defective and that Plaintiffs and the Class Members would be unable to use the air  conditioners for their intended purpose.   53.  To this day, LG continues to misrepresent and/or conceal material information  from Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and the public about the defects in the Affected Products.   When customers complain, report problems, or file warranty claims, LG has failed to disclose the  cause of the problems and has claimed that the problems were caused by a myriad of other  problems unrelated to their defects.  LG’s active concealment is part of its common plan and  scheme to continue to mislead its customers and to avoid remedying the defects in its products.  Fraudulent Concealment Allegations   54.  Plaintiffs’ claims arise in part from LG’s fraudulent concealment of the true  defects.  To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims arise from LG’s fraudulent concealment, there is no  one document, communication, or interaction, upon which Plaintiffs base their claims. They  allege that at all relevant times, including specifically at the time they purchased their air  17  conditioners: (1) LG knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the defects; (2) LG was under a  duty to disclose the defects based upon its exclusive knowledge of the defects, its representations  about its products, and its concealment of the defects; and (3) LG never disclosed the defects to the  Plaintiffs or anyone at any time or place or in any manner, even when directly asked whether the  Affected Products contained defects.   55.   Plaintiffs make the following specific fraud allegations with as much specificity as  possible absent access to the information necessarily available only to LG:  (a)  Who: LG concealed the defects from Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and  everyone in the chain of distribution.  Plaintiffs are unaware of, and therefore unable to  identify, the true names and identities of those individuals at LG responsible for such  decisions.  Upon information and belief, these individuals include, but are not limited to,  employees within LG’s “CAC” division/department (e.g., engineers, salesman, technical  support, etc.).  (b)  What: LG knew at the time it sold the Affected Products, or was reckless in  not knowing, that the existing defects in the air conditioners would cause the air  conditioners to prematurely fail or otherwise not perform as intended, thereby rendering  the Affected Products unable to perform their essential purpose of heating and cooling their  properties long before the end of their expected useful lives (within and without outside of  the applicable warranty periods).  (c)  When, Where, and How: Beginning no later than 2007, LG concealed this  material information at all times with respect to the Affected Products, including through  the time of sale, on an ongoing basis, and continuing to this day.  LG concealed this  material information in every communication it had with Plaintiffs, the Class Members,  18  and everyone in the chain of distribution and after-market service.  Plaintiffs are aware of  no document, communication, or other place or thing, in which LG disclosed this material  information to anyone outside of LG or LG’s distribution chain. Such information does not  appear in any sales documents, displays, advertisements, warranties, owner’s manual, or  on LG’s website that can be accessed by the general public.  When customers complain,  report problems, or file warranty claims, LG has failed to disclose the cause of the  problems and has misrepresented that the problems were caused by a myriad of other  problems unrelated to the air conditioner’s defects.  LG’s active concealment is part of its  common plan and scheme to continue to mislead its customers and to avoid remedying the  defects in its products.    (i) Regarding the inverter units, in December, 2010, LG directed its  distributors to “quarantine” units that had not yet been sold to customers such as  Plaintiffs, but specifically instructed them not to do anything to the units already in  the field.  In December, 2010, LG issued a service bulletin regarding problems  with its Inverter products; however, LG did not disclose this bulletin to the general  public, and it was not mailed or otherwise directly provided to LG’s customers.  It  also did not disclose the full extent and nature of the defects with the products.   This bulletin was a further effort to mislead its customers and suppress the true  nature of the defects.  This is but one example.  (ii) Regarding the PTAC products, LG issued a series of service  bulletins (dated December, 2007, June, 2009, and April, 2011) admitting that its  PTAC units contained defective boards, fan motors, coils, and/or compressors.   However, LG hid these bulletins from the general public and did not mail or  19  otherwise directly provide them to LG’s customers.  Although LG agreed to  extend its warranty on the PTAC products for some of these defects, LG refused to  pay expenses for past labor and materials incurred by its customers in an effort to  remedy the defects.  LG has further failed to abide by its promise to remedy the  problems and has instead continued to stall and delay repairs.  Again, these are  merely examples.  (d)  Why: LG concealed this material information for the purpose of inducing  Plaintiffs and the Class Members to purchase the Affected Products at full price rather than  purchasing competitors’ air conditioners or paying LG less for the Affected Products.   Had LG disclosed the truth, neither Plaintiffs nor the Class Members would have bought  the Affected Products, or, at a minimum, would have paid less for them.  Further,  Plaintiffs would not have engaged in futile efforts to attempt to repair the defective air  conditioners, including paying for labor and parts that would not remedy the defects that  were known or should have been known to LG before they were sold and incurring other  consequential damages.  64.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly  situated, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   65.  The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:  All persons or entities who are citizens of and/or are legally residing in the United  States who have purchased or own or have owned any LG air conditioner since 2007  including, but not limited to, Inverter products (e.g., Inverter CST_ FST, Inverter  Split, Flex Multi, Multi V, DFS systems), PTAC products, and other LG air  conditioner models.  Excluded from the Class are (a) LG and any entity in which LG has a controlling interest, and its  legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns, and successors, (b) the United States  government and any agency or instrumentality thereof; (c) the judge to whom this case is assigned  and any member of the judge’s immediate family; (d) claims for personal injury, wrongful death,  and/or emotional distress; (e) any person or entity who is currently in bankruptcy; (f) any person  currently in litigation with LG including, but not limited to, Cottage Builders, Inc. and any  affiliated entity or person who owns an interest in Cottage Builders, Inc.   66.  Numerosity/Impracticability of Joinder: The Class Members are so numerous  23  that joinder of all Class Members would be impracticable. The Class includes tens of thousands of  Class Members. The Class is composed of an easily ascertainable, self-identifying set of  individuals and entities that purchased or owned Affected Products.  The precise number of Class  Members can be ascertained by reviewing documents in LG’s sole possession, custody, and  control.   67.  Commonality and Predominance: There are common questions of law and fact  that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members.  These common  legal and factual questions, include, but are not limited to, the following:  (a)  Whether   the   Affected   Products   contain   common   design  and/or manufacturing defects;  (b)  Whether the Affected Products are substantially certain to prematurely fail;  (c)  Whether the Affected Products are not of merchantable quality;  (d)  Whether the existence of the defects in the Affected Products is a material  fact reasonable purchasers would have considered in deciding whether to purchase an air  conditioner;  (e)  Whether LG knew and/or was reckless in not knowing of the defects in the  Affected Products;  (f)  Whether LG engaged in a pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading  conduct involving the marketing and sale of the Affected Products;  (g)  Whether LG consciously concealed or failed to disclose material facts to  Plaintiffs and other Class Members with respect to the defects in the Affected Products;  (h)  Whether LG knew that consumers were unaware of the defects and that they  expected the air conditioners to be free from defects at the time of sale;  24  (i)  Whether LG knew that consumers would expect their air conditioners to  effectively heat and cool Plaintiffs’ Class Members’ properties;  (j)  Whether LG knew that customers would expect it to disclose the existence  of known defects that would prevent the air conditioners from properly functioning, and  that such disclosure would impact consumers’ decision as to whether to purchase the  Affected Products;  (k)  Whether LG intended that Plaintiffs and the other Class Members rely on its  acts of concealment and omissions when purchasing the Affected Products;  (l)  Whether as a result of the foregoing acts, omissions, and practices, Plaintiffs  and the Class Members have suffered an ascertainable loss by purchasing defective air  conditioners that are unable to perform their essential function, require additional  expenditures in order to reach their expected useful life, if ever, and that present a risk to  the safety of Plaintiffs and Class Members in the form of risk of fire and/or mold.  (m)  Whether LG’s false and misleading statements of facts and concealment of  material facts regarding the defect in the Affected Products were likely to deceive the  public;  (n)  Whether LG’s acts and omissions violated the New Jersey CFA;  (o)  Whether LG fraudulently concealed from and/or failed to disclose to  Plaintiffs and the Class Members the defects in the Affected Products;  (p)  Whether LG’s conduct breached implied and expressed warranties;  (q)  Whether LG’s warranties failed of their essential purpose;  (r)  Whether LG has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and  Class Members;  25  (s)  Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered any ascertainable loss of  money or property as a result of the false promise or misrepresentation, or concealment,  suppression or omission of material fact;  (t)  Whether LG should be declared financially responsible for notifying all  Class Members of the defective Affected Products and for the costs and expenses of repair  and replacement of all such defective components therein;  (u)  Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover compensatory  and consequential damages, including refunds, punitive damages, treble damages, interest,  attorneys’ fees, filing fees, and reasonable costs of suit in connection with LG’s unlawful  conduct as alleged herein;  (v)  Whether, as a result of LG’s misconduct, Plaintiffs and the Class Members  are entitled to equitable relief and other relief and, if so, the nature of such relief;  (w)  Whether New Jersey law can be applied to the claims of Plaintiffs and the  Class Members; and  (x)  Whether the actions of LG were willful and malicious, or manifested  knowing and reckless indifference and disregard toward the rights of Plaintiffs and the  Class Members.   68.  Typicality:  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members.   Plaintiffs and all Class Members have each been injured by the same wrongful practices by LG.   Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of  the Class Members and are based on the same legal and remedial theories.   69.  Adequacy:  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class  Members because Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the  26  Class Members.  Plaintiffs retained counsel with experience in the prosecution of matters relating  to the conduct at issue, in addition to substantial experience in handling complex litigation, class  actions and product liability litigation.  Neither Plaintiffs nor their attorneys have any interests  that are contrary to or conflicting with the Class Members.   70.  Superiority:  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein.  Such treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum,  simultaneously, efficiently, and without duplication of effort and expense that numerous  individual actions would entail.  While the aggregate damages sustained by the Class Members  are in the millions of dollars, and are no less than five million dollars upon information and belief,  the individual damages incurred by each Class Member resulting from LG’s wrongful conduct are  too small to warrant the expense of individual suits. The likelihood of individual Class Members  prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, and, even if every Class Member could afford  individual litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such  cases. Individual Class Members do not have a significant interest in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate actions, and individualized litigation would also present the potential for  varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all  of the parties and to the court system because of multiple trials of the same factual and legal issues.   Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this action that would  preclude its maintenance as a class action.   In addition, LG has acted, or refused to act, on  grounds generally applicable to the Class Members and, as such, final injunctive relief or  corresponding declaratory relief with regard to the Class Members as a whole is appropriate.   71.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby  27  making final relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.  As discussed in more detail  below, Defendants have collectively acted in a manner that impacted all of the Class Members in  an identical manner.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create  the risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications with respect to individual Class Members, which  would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.  72.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   73.  Plaintiffs and other Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of the  New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2 et seq. (the “CFA”).   74.  The Affected Products are “goods” within the meaning of the CFA.   75.  At all relevant times material hereto, LG conducted trade and commerce in New  Jersey and elsewhere within the meaning of the CFA.   76.  The CFA is, by its terms, a cumulative remedy, such that remedies under its  provisions can be awarded in addition to those provided under other remedies.   77.  LG has engaged in deceptive, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, and misleading  commercial practices in the marketing and sale of air conditioners it knew or should have known  were defective.   78.  LG had exclusive knowledge of the defects at the time of sale. The defects are  latent and not something that Plaintiffs or Class Members could, in the exercise of reasonable  diligence, have discovered independently prior to purchase.  28   79.  LG represented that its goods, merchandise, or services had characteristics, uses,  benefits, or qualities that they did not have, and that its goods, merchandise, and services were of a  particular standard, quality, or grade that they were not.   80.  In its marketing and sale of the Affected Products, LG undertook active and  ongoing steps to conceal the defects and has consciously withheld material facts from Plaintiffs  and the Class Members with respect to the defects in the Affected Products. Plaintiffs are aware of  nothing in LG’s advertising, publicity, or marketing materials that discloses the truth about the  defects, despite LG’s awareness of the problem.   81.  LG’s conduct was objectively deceptive and had the capacity to deceive reasonable  consumers under the circumstances. The fact that defects in the Affected Products would prevent  the air conditioners from functioning as designed and render the air conditioners unable to perform  their essential purpose of heating and cooling was a material fact that a reasonable and/or  unsophisticated consumer would attach importance to at the time of purchase and that would  influence reasonable consumers’ choice of action during the purchase of their air conditioners.   82.  LG intended that Plaintiffs and the Class Members rely on its acts of concealment  and omissions, so that Plaintiffs and other Class Members would purchase the Affected Products at  full price rather than paying less for them or purchasing competitors’ air conditioners.   83.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members purchased the Affected Products in the wake of  LG’s knowing concealment and omissions.   84.  Had LG disclosed all material information regarding the defect to Plaintiffs and the  Class Members, they may not have purchased the Affected Products, or, at a minimum, they  would have paid less for the Affected Products.   85.  LG’s general course of conduct had an impact on the public interest because the  29  acts were part of a generalized course of deceptive conduct affecting numerous consumers.   86.  As a result of the foregoing acts, omissions, and practices, Plaintiffs and the Class  Members have suffered an ascertainable loss by purchasing defective air conditioners that are  unable to perform their essential function of heating and cooling their properties for the expected  useful life and that present a risk to the safety of Plaintiffs and the Class Members in the form of  risk of fire hazards and/or mold and mildew.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members may have also  incurred additional costs to replace and/or repair the Affected Products. Plaintiffs and the Class  Members are entitled to recover such damages, together with appropriate penalties, including  compensatory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys’  fees, and costs of suit.   87.  Application of the CFA to all Class Members, regardless of their state of residence,  is appropriate as described herein and because, inter alia:  (a)  LG USA controlled and directed its nationwide sales operations and support  operations from LG USA’s headquarters in New Jersey;  (b)  LG USA’s marketing and customer support operations and decisions were  made in New Jersey, LG USA’s headquarters;  (c)  LG USA’s principal place of business is located in New Jersey;  (d)  A significant percentage of LG USA’s key employees are based in New  Jersey; and  (e)  The facts and circumstances of this case reflect numerous contacts with the  State of New Jersey so as to create a state interest in applying the CFA to the Defendants,  thereby making application of New Jersey law to the entire Class appropriate.  WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek the following  30  relief under Count One of the Complaint:   88.  Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if fully set forth herein.   89.  At all times relevant herein, LG Korea and LG USA were and are in the business of  manufacturing and selling air conditioners.   90.  LG Korea and LG USA have brought themselves into privity with Plaintiffs and  the Class Members by selling and/or warranting the Affected Products to them directly and/or  through the agency doctrine.   91.  At all times relevant herein, LG impliedly warranted in a uniform manner to  Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members that the Affected Products were of the same or greater  quality as generally accepted for air conditioners and were safe and fit for their intended use as air  conditioners.   92.  Contrary to LG’s implied warranties, the Affected Products were not of  merchantable quality at the time of sale, as they were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which  such goods are used and/or do not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made in the  promotional literature. The Affected Products contained inherent, latent defects at the time of sale  31  that were substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product such  that the air conditioners would not perform their essential function.   93.  LG was aware of these defects, but sold the Affected Products without disclosing  the defects to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.   94.  When LG marketed and sold the Affected Products for use by Plaintiffs and the  Class Members, LG had actual or constructive knowledge of the particular purposes for which the  Affected Products would be used.   95.  When LG marketed and sold the Affected Products for use by Plaintiff and the  Class Members, LG had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs and the Class Members  would and did rely upon the skill and judgment of LG to select and furnish air conditioners that  were suitable for residential and non-residential use.   96.  Contrary to LG’s implied warranty, the Affected Products were not fit for their  intended and known use by Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Affected Products contain  inherent defects which are substantially certain to result in malfunction during their useful life.   97.  LG was aware of the defects in the Affected Products and did not act on that  knowledge. LG continued to actively conceal from customers that the air conditioners they  purchased were defective at the time of sale.   98.  Had the defects that existed at the time of sale been known, the Affected Products  could not have been sold or could not have been sold at the same price.   99.  Had Plaintiffs or the Class Members been aware of the defects that existed at the  time of sale, they would not have purchased the Affected Products (or would have paid less for  them).  100.  LG has received timely notice of the breach of implied warranties alleged herein.   32  LG has been put on notice by the Class Members as a whole by reason of its knowledge of the  defects, and by warranty claims and other complaints made by Plaintiffs, the Class Members,  distributors, sales representatives, and contractors.  101.  Any express limitation or negation of LG’s implied warranties that the Affected  Products were fit to perform their essential purpose, when such was not the case, would be  unreasonable, unconscionable, and fraudulent. Accordingly, any such limitation is unenforceable.   Further, any express limitation of negation of LG’s implied warranties is unenforceable because  such warranties failed on their essential purpose when LG did not timely remedy the defects in the  Affected Products.  102.  As a direct and legal result of the breach of implied warranties by LG, Plaintiffs and  the Class Members sustained actual and consequential damages in an amount to be determined  according to proof at time of trial.  WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek the following  relief under Count Two of the Complaint:   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES  (against LG Korea and LG USA)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (against LG Korea and LG USA)  103.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.  104.  LG has been unjustly enriched by the sale of the Affected Products to Plaintiffs and  33  the Class Members.  105.  Plaintiffs seek to recover for LG’s unjust enrichment under New Jersey State law.  106.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members conferred a benefit on LG, but LG failed to  disclose its knowledge that Plaintiffs did not receive what they paid for and misled Plaintiffs and  the Class Members regarding the qualities of the Affected Products while profiting from this  deception.  107.  The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable, unconscionable, and  unjust to permit LG to retain the benefit of these profits that it unfairly has obtained from Plaintiffs  and the Class Members.  108.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members, having been injured by LG’s conduct, are  entitled to restitution or disgorgement of profits as a result of the unjust enrichment of LG to their  detriment.  WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek the following  relief under Count One of the Complaint:  