[brief] On September 24, 2022, defendant submitted its request for jury instructions which contained a specific instruction on contract terms and “anti-waiver” provisions with regard to the RETA.  The request for instructions regarding the “anti-waiver” provisions was based on the plaintiffs’ introduction of specific provisions in the plaintiffs’ contracts intended to ensure that they understood the obligations they knowingly assumed and that they did not hear something different than those terms and conditions memorialized in their contracts.  For example, each of the plaintiffs’ contracts contained the following provisions:  Buyer also acknowledges, represents and warrants that the purchase of the interval is made to the buyers personal use, and not for investment purposes, without reliance on representations concerning rentals, rent return, tax advantages, depreciation or investment potential, or other monetary or financial advantage, by seller, its agents, employees or associates.  Purchasers further acknowledge that they have entered into this Purchase and Sale Agreement freely and voluntarily, without coercion or undue pressure from employees and/or agents of the [...].  The Purchasers acknowledge that he/she/they had/have not relied upon any statement as to the price to be derived from the resale of his/her/their rental unit.  The owner acknowledges that they have not relied upon any statements as to resale value of their week.  No representations, claims, statements, advertising, promotional activities made by seller or seller’s agents or representatives, shall in any way be binding upon the seller.  (All at Da1222-1224).  It was the plaintiffs’ position that those provisions bound plaintiffs to [...]’s waiver of compliance with the RETA in violation of N.J.S.A. 45-15-16.80(c).  That provision states:  Any stipulation or provision purporting to bind a purchaser acquiring an interest in a timeshare plan subject to the provisions of this Act to a waiver of compliance with the provisions of this Act shall be void.  Id.  On September 28, 2022, the trial court determined that as a matter of law, [...]’s contracts did not violate the “anti-waiver” provisions pursuant to the RETA.  (15T110:10-112:4).  The next day however, the trial court on its own motion vacated that decision and determined that the issue was one of fact for the jury.  (16T62:5-72:4).  The Court then charged N.J.S.A. 45:15-16.80(c) as the fifteenth violation by the defendant.  (Da1180-1181).  Other than reciting the subsection, the jury was simply told to decide whether [...] knowingly had the plaintiffs sign contracts whereby the plaintiffs waived [...]’s compliance with the RETA.  Without any instruction whatsoever as to the nature of a contract, the intent of the parties or the specific terms and conditions of the contractual documents that allegedly constituted waiver, the jury was directed to make that determination.  Instructing the jury to decide such a question in a vacuum is the antithesis of the very purpose of jury charges.  That is why [...] provided the trial court with a proposed instruction as to the “anti-waiver” provisions that was critical and necessary for the jury to understand the issue before deciding it.  Most problematic, however, is the trial court having first ruled there was no violation by [...] as a matter of law which left no issue for the jury to consider, but then reversing that determination on its own and submitting a question of contract interpretation to the jury.  The trial Court erred and the error requires correction.