Plaintiffs brought claims against defendant, owner of a resort property in Atlantic City, alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Real Estate Timeshare Act (RETA). After a trial, the jury found defendant liable to plaintiffs under both the CFA and RETA and awarded damages under both statutes. After merging the verdicts, the trial court awarded treble damages under the CFA, as well as attorney's fees and prejudgment interest against defendants. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that: the parol evidence rule did not bar plaintiffs from introducing evidence of fraud during trial; plaintiffs were permitted to bring claims pursuant to the CFA and RETA simultaneously; RETA and its accompanying regulations require that a purchaser be given a reasonable opportunity to review a public offering statement; the trial court did not err by submitting a question of contract interpretation to the jury; the trial court did not err by permitting evidence of defendant's alleged RETA violations to go to the jury nor did it present those violations as separate causes of action upon which damages could be award; and finally, the trial court did not err when it increased plaintiffs' attorney's fee award after reconsideration.