Case Law Summaries

Crowley v. Maalouf

CONTRACTS; PERFORMANCE; PAYMENT—Even when a contract calls for payment by cash, if a buyer offers a check subject to clearance and agrees to wait until the check clears before taking delivery, it is the equivalent of offering cash.

• Opinion Date: April 14, 2003
• Business Law

CIT Communications Finance Corporation v. Lacher & Lovell-Taylor

CONTRACTS; LEASES; ASSIGNMENT—An assignment does not work a novation and payments to a seller or lessor under an assigned contract should not be held hostage to a dispute between the assignor and its assignee.

• Opinion Date: February 27, 2003
• Business Law

Schweizer v. Stepan Chemical Company

CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION—While determining the construction of a contract is a matter of law, when a contract is ambiguous or parol evidence is needed to understand the agreement, it is up to a jury to determine what agreement was reached.

• Opinion Date: January 31, 2003
• Business Law

Shore Career Consulting, Inc. v. Hobart West Group

CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION—Where a contract is ambiguous about whether a party can act unilaterally in a way that would deprive the other party of compensation, a court will interpret the contract consistent with an understanding that payment was intended.

• Opinion Date: February 4, 2003
• Business Law

Azurak v. Corporate Property Investors

CONTRACTS; INDEMNIFICATION—The distinction between “broad” and “limited” indemnification clauses is no longer relevant; now, to indemnify against an indemnitee’s own negligence, the clause must specifically reference the negligence or fault of the indemnitee.

• Opinion Date: January 23, 2003
• Business Law

D.J. Miller & Associates, Inc. v. State of New Jersey

CONTRACTS; GOVERNMENTS; REMEDIES—A state agency cannot limit a contractor’s remedy for claims relating to final Director’s decisions to an action before the Appellate Division because it is contrary to court rules and only the New Jersey Supreme Court has the authority to allocate jurisdiction.

• Opinion Date: December 23, 2002
• Business Law

Gorca Systems, Inc. v. Bayer Corporation

CONTRACTS; GOOD FAITH; FAIR DEALING—There is no dichotomy between the principles of good faith or of fair dealing because they are either inextricably bound together or intended to express essentially the same kind of duty.

• Opinion Date: March 12, 2003
• Business Law

Judge v. Blackfin Yacht Corporation

CONTRACTS; FRAUD—It wasn’t fraud when a boat dealer didn’t tell its customer that the boat manufacturer was in bankruptcy because there was no evidence that the manufacturer couldn’t build the customer’s boat.

• Opinion Date: February 13, 2003
• Business Law

Wreh v. Tuck

CONTRACTS; FRAUD—Leasing a financed vehicle in possible contravention of the owner’s financing agreement is not an illegal transaction and is enforceable, but the lessee may be entitled to collect damages, if any, arising out of what might be a fraud against the financing company.

• Opinion Date: November 6, 2003
• Business Law

Newman v. Camp Towanda

CONTRACTS; FORUM SELECTION—A contract requiring all disputes to be heard in a particular jurisdiction may require that a personal injury action be brought in that jurisdiction.

• Opinion Date: September 12, 2003
• Business Law