Skip to main content



Category: Business Law

Allen v. V and A Bros., Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; PERSONAL LIABILITY — Even though individuals are acting on behalf of an entity, such as a corporation, they still can be held liable as “persons” under the Consumer Fraud Act for certain affirmative acts.

  • Opinion Date: July 7, 2011

Alboyacian v. BP Products North America, Inc.

FRANCHISES — When a franchisee makes claims for wrongful termination of its franchise, absent fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, and similar items, and the court rules that its franchise agreement had not, in fact, been terminated, those claims must be dismissed.

  • Opinion Date: November 22, 2011

Ach Enterprises 1 LLC v. Viking Yacht Company

UCC; WARRANTIES — Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a specific warranty period is stated, any alleged defect must be discovered during that period and because the Magnuson-Moss Act does not contain a statute of limitations, the court will look to the UCC warranty to see if the claim under that Act will be time-barred.

  • Opinion Date: October 7, 2011

National Auto Dealers Exchange, L.P. v. Sauber

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT — The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its guidelines prohibit a creditor from requiring a spouse’s signature on a note when the applicant individually qualifies for credit; therefore, a court needs to determine whether, in any given situation, a spouse served as a personal guarantor solely because of the spouse’s marital status and without reliance on the spouse’s creditworthiness.

  • Opinion Date: October 3, 2011

LoRusso v. Schaible

LOANS; GUARANTIES; CROSS-COLLATERALIZATION — Cross-collateralization clauses will be enforced, but if a subsequent loan does not reference the earlier document cross-collateralization clause and includes an integration clause barring reference to prior agreements, the later loan will not be considered to be cross-collateralized with the earlier loan.

  • Opinion Date: September 22, 2011

Triffin v. Community Preschool & Nursery, LLC

CHECKS — A New Jersey court does not have a geographical restriction on its authority to levy on an out-of-state bank account if it has personal jurisdiction over the bank and the subject matter of the suit is within the authority of the court.

  • Opinion Date: December 6, 2011

Qugen, Inc. v. Chawla

CORPORATIONS; VEIL PIERCING — A claimant seeking to pierce a corporate veil by alleging that the shareholders committed fraud has to prove the fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Opinion Date: December 2, 2011

Sosa v. Client Services, Inc.

FDCPA — The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not require the current creditor to provide the name and address of the original creditor in its initial notice to a debtor.

  • Opinion Date: November 16, 2011

In the Matter of Protest of Scheduled Award of Contract T0711/RFP 10-X-20725

PUBLIC BIDDING — Where a successful public bidder’s proposal is consistent with the bidding requirements, a later submitted letter that more carefully explains and expands upon previously provided information does not constitute an impermissible correction of the original bid proposal.

  • Opinion Date: July 29, 2011

Schulmann v. Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation

TAXATION — Under New Jersey’s tax law, an individual who pays the expenses of his or her corporation cannot deduct those expenses from the amount he or she reports as income from the corporation because individuals cannot disregard the corporate form by taking personal deductions for paying corporate obligations.

  • Opinion Date: December 6, 2011
Page 3 of 188 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

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