Category: Business Law

Salem Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Delgado Trucking Express, Inc.

CONTRACTS — Where a contract makes one party responsible only for loss or damage resulting from careless, reckless, intentional or abusive conduct, and that party damages property, but not by reason of any of the listed reasons, it is not responsible for the cost of repair.

• Opinion Date: June 16, 2011

Creative Waste Management, Inc. v. Bay Owners Association, Inc.

ARBITRATION — Where a party seeks arbitration relief against an assetless party (whose obligations are really those of its owners), the owners have a right to participate in the arbitration and any award granted without permitting those owners to appear will be vacated.

• Opinion Date: June 17, 2011

Estate of Cohen v. Booth Computers

PARTNERSHIPS; BUY-OUTS; VALUATION — New Jersey law does not require the buy-out price for a partnership interest to be based upon fair market value and accepts that the term, “book value,” has a readily understood meeting in the accounting trade and further, even a large disparity in price between book value and fair market value will not, by itself, be grounds to invalidate a partnership’s agreed-upon buy-out provision.

• Opinion Date: July 13, 2011

Bank One, N.A. v. Witasick

FDCPA — A servicing agent who began servicing a loan before a borrower was in default is not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

• Opinion Date: May 27, 2011

Campbell v. Pamrapo Service Corp.

ARBITRATION; AGENCY — An agent can bind its principal to the terms of arbitration agreement even if the principal never expressly agreed to be bound by it.

• Opinion Date: May 24, 2011

Kieffer v. New Century Financial Services, Inc.

FDCPA — Knowingly levying upon a joint account in New Jersey, where the debtor is only one of the account owners, is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because, in New Jersey, joint account holders are entitled to a presumption of half ownership.

• Opinion Date: May 19, 2011

Lapidoth v. Telcordia Technologies, Inc.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT — Even though employment may clearly be “at-will,” and the employer’s code and employment action clearly states so, an employee can later create contractual rights or promise a particular employee that he or she will be reinstated after a lengthy leave of absence, thereby, for those purposes, negating the at-will condition of employment.

• Opinion Date: June 9, 2011

Peterson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

FDCPA; NOTICES — There can only be one “initial communication” between a debt collector and a debtor under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; therefore there is no so-called “continuing violations” rule that would reset the statute of limitations clock upon each subsequent communication.

• Opinion Date: June 6, 2011

Fabcon East, L.L.C. v. The Stegla Group, Inc.

CONTRACTS; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ESTOPPEL — Even though a contract may have a contractual limitation on the time within which claims can be made, the making of assurances or payments acknowledging the continued vitality of the amount owed may work as an estoppel and extend the contractual limitations period.

• Opinion Date: June 8, 2011

Canter v. Lakewood of Voorhees

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS; VEIL PIERCING — Corporate veil-piercing principles can apply to a New Jersey limited partnership.

• Opinion Date: June 28, 2011