23.  This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs, individually and as a class action,  pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3) on behalf of a nationwide class of  consumers.  Specifically, the nationwide class consists of:  All persons in the United States who purchased a Tristar Flex-Able hose (the  “Nationwide Class” or “Class”).     27.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.    28.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Class against Defendant.    29.  The NJCFA was enacted to protect citizens from deceptive, fraudulent, and  misleading commercial practices and makes such practices unlawful.    30.  The aforementioned unlawful, false, deceptive, and misleading advertisements by  Defendant constitute a violation of N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-2 because Defendant made  affirmative misrepresentations regarding the strength, durability, and longevity of its Flex-Able  hoses.    31.  The aforementioned unlawful, false, deceptive, and misleading advertisements by  Defendant constitute a violation of N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-2 because Defendant knowingly  omitted and concealed material facts regarding the strength, durability, and longevity of the Flex- Able hose and Defendant knew that others would rely on such omissions and concealments.    32.  The aforementioned unlawful, false, deceptive, and misleading advertisements by  Defendant constitute a violation of N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-2.2 because Defendant advertised its  Flex-Able hoses as part of a plan or scheme not to sell a tough, durable, and long-lasting hose,  contrary to its advertisements and marketing materials.     37.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.    38.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Illinois Class against Defendant.    39.  Defendant knew its Flex-Able hoses were defectively designed or manufactured,  were prone to premature failure, and were not suitable for their ordinary and intended use as a  gardening hose.    55.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.    56.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Class against all Defendants.    57.  The aforementioned unlawful, false, deceptive, and misleading advertisements by  Defendants constitutes a violation of N.Y. GEN. BUS. § 349 because the advertisements  constituted “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.”    58.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered an  ascertainable loss in the form of direct monetary losses.    59.  A causal relationship exists between Defendants’ unlawful, false, deceptive, and  misleading conduct and the Plaintiffs’ and the putative Classes’ injuries, including, but not  limited to, the amount of money expended to purchase, repair, and replace Defendant’s defective  Flex-Able hose.  Had Defendant not engaged in the aforementioned deceptive conduct, Plaintiffs  and the putative Classes would not have purchased the Flex-Able hoses, or would have paid less  for them.    65.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.    66.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Class against Defendant.    70.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.    71.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Class against Defendant.   72.  At all times mentioned herein, Defendant manufactured and sold the Flex-Able  hose, and prior to the time it was purchased by Plaintiffs and the putative Class, Defendant  impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs, that the Flex-Able hose was of merchantable quality and fit for  the use for which it was intended.   73.  The Flex-Able hoses were unfit for their intended use and were not of  merchantable quality, as warranted by Defendant, but instead and contained a manufacturing or  design defect.  Specifically, the Flex-Able hose suffers from a design and/or manufacturing  defect because it is prone to leaking, bursting, seeping, and dripping.    75.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.    76.  Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the  members of the Class against Defendant.     77.  Every contract in New Jersey contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair  dealing.  The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is an independent duty and may be  breached even if there is no breach of a contract’s express terms.    78.  Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, inter alia,  failing to properly notify and adequately disclose to Plaintiffs and Class members that its Flex- Able hoses were defectively designed and/or manufactured and that they were not fit for their  ordinary and intended uses.   79.  The Defendants acted in bad faith and/or with a malicious motive to deny the  Plaintiffs and Class members the benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, thereby  causing them monetary injury.  80.  Plaintiffs and the Classes incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth herein.   BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, Each State Class)    BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, Each State Class)   BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, Each State Class)    UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, Each State Class)    VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS  PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq., and ILLIONIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE  TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS § 510/2.   (On Behalf of the Illinois Class)   VIOLATIONS OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  (On Behalf of the Colorado Class)   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349   (On Behalf of the New York Class)    VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350  (On Behalf of the New York Class)   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (“NJCFA”)  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the New Jersey Class)  