Skip to main content



Category: Business Law

ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank

BANKS; CUSTOMERS —One can assert a “non-customer” claim against a bank based upon the nature of the contact between the bank and the non-customer and the surrounding circumstances of that contact, such as information that the non-customer may have received when an account was opened by a bank customer.

  • Opinion Date: December 29, 2011

Munoz v. Perla

PARTNERSHIPS; FIDUCIARY DUTY — The fiduciary duties from one partner to another may change over time if the relationship between those partners and in other businesses changes.

  • Opinion Date: December 20, 2011

Henderson v. Weinstein & Riley, P.S., PC

FDCPA; BANKRUPTCY —The Bankruptcy Act does not preclude a debtor’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where the claims are that a creditor was in violation of the Act by reason of actions the creditor took during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.

  • Opinion Date: December 27, 2011

Manning v. Lithium Technology Corporation

CONTRACTS; GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING — Parties are not bound by what they think, but rather by what they say, meaning that there is no contract if people have not agreed on the terms of such a contract and, in the absence of a contract, there is no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Opinion Date: December 16, 2011

Reddick v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company

CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION — Just because a contract could have included more language to reiterate an already-clear meaning does not mean that it must do so, so long as the contract language is clear, a draftsperson need not always use the same formulation of words simply because it chose to use that formulation in another context.

  • Opinion Date: December 16, 2011

Levitan and Frieland, PC v. Valley National Bancorp

CHECKS — A counterfeit check is treated as the equivalent of a forged check and only the malefactor can be liable on a forged or counterfeit instrument; moreover, acceptance of such a check by a bank only constitutes a provisional credit and a bank may revoke the credit when a check is discovered to be counterfeit.

  • Opinion Date: July 27, 2011

DeMaio Electrical Co., Inc. v. Western Monmouth Utilities Authority

PUBLIC BIDDING — The clarification memo does not expressly say that it is needs to be acknowledged by a bidder as part of its bid, such as by using those words or words such as “notice,” “revision” or “addendum,” then to acknowledge the memorandum is a material bid defect, and even if it were a material item, it might not be a material defect.

  • Opinion Date: September 26, 2011

General Electric Capital Corporation v. Oncology Associates of Ocean County LLC

REPLEVIN; PERSONAL PROPERTY — Replevin only applies to personal property and a court may use the trade fixture analysis under the Uniform Commercial Code to distinguish between what constitutes a trade fixture and what constitutes a real property fixture.

  • Opinion Date: December 12, 2011

Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Allen

LOANS; CASINOS —Courts do not favor a casino catering to a compulsive gambler; therefore, a court has the discretion to reject a casino’s request for pre-judgment interest on an unpaid marker or a loan.

  • Opinion Date: January 6, 2011

Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. v. T.C.L. Industries (H.K.) Holdings Limited

GUARANTIES — When a guaranty for a product will expire a certain length of time after the date of its execution and the only date on the document is at the top thereof with no other indication as to what the execution date might otherwise have been, a court will treat the guaranty as clear and ambiguous and use the printed date instead deciding whether the guaranty was signed later.

  • Opinion Date: December 28, 2011
Page 1 of 188 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com