Category: Business Law

Ney v. Panero

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT—A seller of consumer goods is not liable under the Consumer Fraud Act for discrepancies between a product’s actual specifications and those described in a sales brochure when the product matched the actual sample of the product examined by the buyer prior to purchase and the buyer.

• Opinion Date: August 28, 2001

Michael Gottsegen Trust No. 1 v. Panasia Bank

CHECKS; UCC; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS—The change, from six years to three, to the statute of limitations for bringing an action against a bank for cashing a check despite an unauthorized endorsement was prospective only, not affecting checks cashed before the change was made.

• Opinion Date: October 26, 2001

Triffin v. Roma Federal Savings Bank

CHECKS; UCC; HOLDER IN DUE COURSE—If the original party that cashes a subsequently dishonored check is a holder in due course, a buyer of that check, after dishonor, is also accorded holder in due course status.

• Opinion Date: November 1, 2001

Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank

CHECKS; UCC—The purchaser of a dishonored check remains a holder in due course and is not barred from pursuing collection just because the check was invalid when purchased from the prior holder.

• Opinion Date: July 17, 2001

City Check Cashing, Inc. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company

CHECKS; BANKS; UCC—In claims by check cashing services against banks, unless the facts create a “special relationship,” such as by agreement or undertaking that gives rise to a duty, the sole remedies available are those under the UCC.

• Opinion Date: January 17, 2001

DNI Nevada, Inc. v. Medi-Peth Medical Lab, Inc.

CHECKS; BANKS—Regulations governing the availability of funds in a checking account do not convert a provisional credit, which is a fictitious fund, into an asset that can be levied upon.

• Opinion Date: February 22, 2001

Triffin v. JEM Mechanical

CHECKS—A transferee’s knowledge that an instrument had been dishonored does not invalidate its right to be a holder in due course because the transfer of an instrument, even if not by negotiation, vests on the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course.

• Opinion Date: June 21, 2001

Roman Check Cashing, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance

CHECK CASHING—Regulations barring the location of one check cashing firm within 2,500 feet of another are valid, reasonable, and rational.

• Opinion Date: July 18, 2001

Holmes v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

BANKS; CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT—Where a bank certificate of deposit states that it will not be automatically renewed and that interest cannot be paid beyond the term of the certificate, a holder is not entitled to interest beyond the certificate’s maturity.

• Opinion Date: December 17, 2001

Manin v. Design Benefit Plans, Inc.

ARBITRATION; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; DURESS—There is no difference between duress and a claim of fraud in the inducement; each is subject to arbitration if an employment agreement provides for arbitration.

• Opinion Date: March 21, 2001