Category: Business Law

M.J. Paquet, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation

PUBLIC BIDDING— Even though New Jersey law has not adopted the concept of an equitable adjustment, this court applied the federal law concept to a case in which a governmental agency modified a contract, thereby increasing or decreasing the cost for a contractor to perform.

• Opinion Date: April 4, 2002

Entech Corporation v. City of Newark

PUBLIC BIDDING— The statute that provides that bid specification challenges be brought at least three days before bid opening allows a public agency to decide to go ahead with the bidding procedure or to risk a post-award challenge.

• Opinion Date: January 9, 2002

United Jersey Bank v. GSM Company

PARTNERSHIPS; DISSOLUTION— A partner who takes over the partnership’s assets following dissolution may not be entitled to collect pre-dissolution contribution deficiencies from the other partners.

• Opinion Date: March 8, 2002

Sebring Associates v. Coyle

PARTNERSHIPS; DISSOLUTION— Even if a partnership agreement provides a mechanism for dealing with partners who do not respond to cash calls, where such a failure makes it reasonably impractical for a partnership to conduct its business, a court may dissolve the partnership and allow the business to be continued thereafter by the non-defaulting partners only.

• Opinion Date: February 6, 2002

Jacob v. Jacob

PARTNERSHIPS; AGREEMENTS— Family related partners of a small business can’t be assumed to have made irrevocable buy/sell elections in the context of a family gathering, especially when the monetary effect is large compared to the assets of the relatives involved.

• Opinion Date: October 18, 2002

Barr v. Trien, Rosenberg, Rosenberg, Weinberg, Ciullo & Fazzari

PARTNERSHIPS— Where a partnership has no agreement dealing with dissolution value, statutory terms apply, and those terms recognize goodwill value as a partnership asset.

• Opinion Date: March 14, 2002

Wilshire Credit Corporation v. Ferguson

NOTES; NEGOTIABILITY— A settlement agreement requiring payment of monies, even on a monthly basis until a fixed date, is not a negotiable instrument if it contains promises beyond merely ones of payment or those expressly permitted under the UCC.

• Opinion Date: September 19, 2002

In the Matter of the Application of: Rickron, Inc.

LIQUOR LICENSES— Municipalities are not obligated to remind liquor license holders about renewal deadlines.

• Opinion Date: November 26, 2002

Cavallaro 556 Valley Street Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control

LIQUOR LICENSES— After the deadline for applying for a license renewal has passed, the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control has no discretion to extend the time for filing.

• Opinion Date: May 16, 2002

In the Matter of Polly McRiney’s Bar, Inc.

LIQUOR LICENSES— Liquor license applications made after September 28 of a year cannot be accepted unless the applicant can show constructive compliance with the filing requirements before that date.

• Opinion Date: January 24, 2002