Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): than recommended. 19 . CCP argues, without citing any authority, that gel coat is not merchandise because it is not mass produced for sale to the general public and is not a product the average person would know how to use. This argument is not persuasive. The fact that CCP markets its gel coat for sale to manufactures rather than household users is insignificant because the Act is expressly not limited to the sale of items for "personal, family, or household use.” Hundred E. Credit Corp., 212 N.J.Super. at 354, 515 A.2d 246. Moreover, contrary to CCP's assertion, there is no requirement that "the average person walking down the street" know how to use a product for it to be considered "merchandise" under the Act. See, e.g., Coastal Group, Inc., 274 N.J.Super. at 174, 643 A.2d 649 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the gel coat at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a purchaser of prefabricated wall panels for installation could bring a claim under the njcfa (B) holding that while parents may not bring a title ix claim as individuals they may bring such claim on behalf of a deceased child (C) holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim (D) holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea (E) holding child could bring action for enticement of parent
Output (English): holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim