[brief] [...] proceeded to enforce the Provision only after Appellants defaulted for a third time under the Lease.  Furthermore, the trial court explained that the Concession Recovery Provision was “fully disclosed, bargained for, and agreed to by [Appellants].” (2T25:11-13).  Appellants “were never required to sign the [L]ease [R]ider nor were they required to accept the [Concessions] as a condition of leasing . . . the apartment. ” (2T25:14-17).  The trial court elaborated that the Lease Rider provided Appellants “with a $17,920 benefit in exchange for two commitments, occupying the two-year lease term and making timely rent payments. ” (2T26:8-10).  Appellants “could have rejected the [L]ease and entered into a one-year lease or denied the [C]oncessions and paid the regular rents for those months[.]” (2T26:11-14).  “Instead, [Appellants] voluntarily availed themselves of the free rent option and by not holding up their end of the deal, they are obligated to return that benefit. ” (2T26:14-17).  The trial court also noted that Appellants “did not allege that they were duped or otherwise unaware of the [Concession Recovery Provision] or that they did not understand [its implication].” (2T26:23-25).  Nor could they as the “language is clear, non-technical, and unambiguous” and “was not buried in a long lease but, rather, set off as a separate clearly-identified rider that each tenant was required to review and sign in addition to the lease. ” (2T27:1-5).  “[...] offered a substantial monetary benefits to [Appellants], which they willingly accepted without coercion or deception,” and they were “not mislead regarding the application of the” Concession Recovery Provision.  (2T27:13-18).  Appellants now claim that the Lease Rider was buried in a stack of sub-agreements to the Lease and that [...] made “conflicting representations” by purportedly stating that the four-months’ rent was “free” when it was actually in exchange for Appellants’ obligation to make full and timely rent payments.  (Db21-Db22).  In advancing these arguments for the first time on appeal, Appellants now suggest they did not understand the Lease Rider and the Concession Recovery Provision.  But Appellants never once asserted that they were confused by, did not understand the implications of, or were otherwise mislead with respect to the Concession Recovery Provision.  This head-snapping pivot of position does not appear in their Counterclaim nor did they ever claim confusion before the trial court in response to [...]’s motion to dismiss.  (Da9-Da28; Da87-Da106; 2T).  Nor did Appellants ever assert confusion at any point prior to litigation, such as when [...] sought to enforce, but eventually waived, the Concession Recovery Provision two times prior to the third default that prompted this action.  (Da113).  As such, these belated arguments should be rejected out-of-hand.  In the absence of any precedent from New Jersey that casts doubt on rent abatement provisions, coupled with the decisions from other courts in separate jurisdictions routinely enforcing these provisions, it simply cannot be held that [...] could have committed consumer fraud as defined in the CFA by including the Concession Recovery Provision in the Lease Rider.