With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plus an additional $80,000 for the new engines. Plaintiff wished to prove far greater damages, but was limited by the court. 5 The trial judge apparently rejected the consumer fraud claim against OY because the sale of the GM engines by OY to plaintiff was not a “mass distribution" problem addressed in DiBemardo, supra. That determination is too restrictive a reading of DiBemardo which held merely that the Act was not intended to apply "to the isolated sale of a single family residence by its owner." 206 N.J.Super. at 376. This case, on the other hand, deals with a commercial seller and a mass produced engine, a large number of which plaintiff was prepared to show have also had engine failures. See also New Mea Const. Corp. v. Harper, 203 N.J.Super. 486, 501-503 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>). 6 Since the claims against GM and J & T were

A: holding the act specifically applicable to a custom builder who uses substandard material in the construction of a house and stating generally that the act was not intended to provide an exemption for a custom builder
B: holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3
C: holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable
D: holding rehabilitation act applicable
A.