Konica Minolta Salesman: Deception, Fraud, Falsity & Misrepresentation

  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • 4toner4
  • 2toner1-2
  • Video and Film
  • 7035-overstock-banner-902x177
  • mse-big-new-banner-03-17-2016-416616a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-114
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • big-banner-ad_2-sean
  • Print

Konica Minolta Salesman: Deception, Fraud, Falsity & Misrepresentation

 user admin 2014-11-13 at 12:03:24 pm Views: 670
  • #41463

    Konica Minolta Salesman: Deception, Fraud, Falsity & Misrepresentation
    Monroe school board sues copy company

    A copy company’s misrepresentation of a services contract cost the Monroe Township School District $50,000, the district alleges in a civil lawsuit.

    A Konica Minolta Business Solution salesman gave a false sales pitch, according to a suit filed Oct. 21 in Gloucester County Superior Court by the Monroe Township Board of Education.

    Company salesman Mario DiNatale made a presentation to the school board on July 11, 2013, claiming his company could save the district $11,056 a month for the same services provided by Xerox, according to court papers filed by board attorney John Trimble, who did not return a request for comment.

    A call to Konica’s headquarters was not returned Monday.

    The board authorized a contract with Konica Minolta later that month in a unanimous vote, school board minutes indicate.

    In spite of DiNatale’s presentation, the school district discovered it had paid an additional $10,630 a month to Konica “for the same or less copying services” provided by Xerox, the lawsuit alleges.

    “As a result of the defendant’s misrepresentation, the MTBOE has suffered damages in excess of $50,000,” according to the lawsuit.

    The school board maintains it performed all its obligations in the contract with Konica.

    The board, seeking monetary damages, alleges Konica engaged in common law fraud, breached its contract with the school district and violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

    The company engaged in an “unconscionable business practice, deception, fraud, falsity and misrepresentation,” the district alleges.