Between March 2001 and May 2002, Plaintiff, Hilda Perez, entered into five rent-to-own contracts with Rent-A-Center in order to become the owner of used furniture, a used washer and new dryer, a used DVD player and television, a new computer, and a used large screen television and cabinet. Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 375 N.J.Super. 63, 70, 866 A.2d 1000 (App.Div. 2005). Those transactions were documented by the Appellate Division as follows:

May 3, 2005 Appeal from 375 N.J.Super. 63, 866 A.2d 1000. Petition for certification granted.

(5) the party against whom issue preclusion is sought was a party to, or in privity with, a party to the prior proceeding. [ Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 375 N.J. Super. 63, 76-77, 866 A.2d 1000 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 183 N.J. 586, 874 A.2d 1105 (2005).] However, the doctrine will not be applied where it is unfair to do so.

Reinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Houston, 677 P.2d 567 (Ct. of App.Kan. 1984). After noting that forty-six states and the District of Columbia have adopted statutes regulating rent-to-own agreements the court in Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 866 A.2d 1000 (N.J.Sup. 2005), notes in an Appendix that: Commentators have criticized some state laws purporting to regulate the rent-to-own industry.

Accordingly, Alicia's opinion that the Table was flexible was an erroneous opinion on a question of law which must be disregarded on summary judgment. See Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 375 N.J. Super. 63, 73 (App. Div. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 186 N.J. 188 (2006). In Reuter, our Supreme Court held the enabling statute for police "require[s] the type and number of police positions to be created by ordinance."

Any opinions given by witnesses, experts or otherwise, on questions of law need not be accepted by reviewing courts and may be disregarded. Perez v. Rent–A–Center, Inc. , 375 N.J.Super. 63, 73, 866 A .2d 1000 (App. Div. 2005), rev'd on other grounds , 186 N.J. 188, 892 A .2d 1255 (2006). As we have already pointed out, the Equine Act adopts a stylized definition of "participant" much broader than the term's conventional meaning, undoubtedly in an effort that is to advance the strong immunity policies underlying the legislation.

Therefore, even if all five elements are met, collateral estoppel may still be denied if applying the doctrine would be unfair." Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. 375 N.J. Super. 63, 77 (App. Div. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 186 N.J. 188 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1115, 127 S. Ct. 984, 166 L. Ed. 2d 710 (2007). The two types of proceedings—a domestic violence final restraining order hearing as opposed to civil litigation in which a plaintiff seeks damages for defamation—have obvious differences.