Archive:2007

A.J. Tenwood v. Orange Senior Citizens Hous. Co., 491 A.2d 1280, 200 N.J. Super. 515 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)

In this case, a construction contractor brought a claim for breach of contract against the owner of a housing project.  The contract between the parties included a one-year claims limitation clause.  The court upheld that one-year limitation relying on precedent that the statutory limitation on contract actions could be waived by the express agreement of both parties.  Therefore, as long as the period is reasonable and does not violate public policy, shortened statutes of limitation clauses are valid.
 

Seal Tite Corp. v. Ehret, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 701 (D.N.J. 1984)

In this case, a subcontractor sued the general contractor for failure to pay in a timely fashion, and moved for summary judgment.  Relying on the “pay when paid” provision of the subcontract, the general contractor claimed that it had not yet been paid in entirety by the owner and therefore the lack of payment to the subcontract was not in breach of the contract.  The court ruled that the “pay when paid” clause was designed to postpone payment by general contractor to subcontractor for a reasonable period after work has been completed to afford the general contractor the opportunity to procure from the owner the funds necessary to pay the subcontractor.  The purpose is not to require the subcontractor to wait to be paid for an indefinite period of time.  Accordingly, the court granted the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment and awarded the amount due under the subcontract.

Broadway Maint. Corp. v. Rutgers Univ., 447 A.2d 906, 90 N.J. 253 (1982)

In this case, two prime contractors brought suit against the university for damages caused by delays in construction.  In the appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey looked at three issues:  (1) whether in an instance of multi-prime contractors each prime contract is liable to the other; (2) whether the owner has a duty to coordinate multi-prime contractors; and (3) whether the exculpatory clause in the prime contracts shielded Rutgers from liability.

The court found that each of the prime contractors, absent privity, had a right of action against the other as long as the contract between the owner and each prime contractor made the remaining contractors third-party beneficiaries.  Second, the court found that an owner entering into multiple prime contracts has the obligation to act in good faith to coordinate the various contractors to avoid unreasonable delay, if the owner has not delegated that responsibility to one of the prime contractors.  Finally, the court found that the exculpatory clause shielded Rutgers from all delays, not just reasonable delays.

Zulla Steel v. A & M Gregos, Inc., 415 A.2d 1183, 174 N.J. Super. 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)

In this case, a subcontractor brought an action against the prime contractor for breach after contractor failed to make progress payments when due.  The plaintiff did not complete the project. The court found that the contractor’s failure to make timely payments constituted a material breach and that the plaintiff was therefore justified in terminating its performance.  The court held that the measure of damages in a matter where the plaintiff was stopped from completing the contract is “such a proportion of the entire price as the fair cost of that work bears to the fair cost of the whole work and, in respect to the work not performed, such profits as he would have realized as a result of the complete performance.”  Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, with slight modification.
 

Conforti & Eisele, Inc. v. John C. Morris Assocs., 418 A.2d 1290, 175 N.J. Super. 341 (N.J Super. Ct. Law Div. 1980)

In this case, a general contractor sued the State and its design professionals for economic damage due to the faulty plans prepared by the design professionals and provided by the State.  There was no privity between the general contractor and the design professional defendants.  However, the court found that a design professional can be held responsible for the losses suffered by a contractor regardless of privity.  The decision was based on a line of New Jersey cases that look with disfavor on the privity doctrine especially with regard to design negligence and physical injuries sustained by third-parties.  The court created a test to determine whether liability should be imposed on design professionals when third-parties are injured.  The elements are:  (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; (2) the foreseeability of harm to him or her; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injuries suffered; (5) the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct; and (6) the policy of preventing future harm.
 

Rolnick v. Gilson & Sons, Inc., 617 A.2d 288, 260 N.J. Super. 564 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)

This case concerned a property that was severely damaged by a fire allegedly caused by a defective fan component in the air conditioning system.  The trial court applied the statute of limitations that bars claims over ten years after improvement, finding that the installation of an air conditioning system was an "improvement" within the meaning of the statute.  The appellate court reversed, finding that a mass produced and marketed attic ventilation fan was not an “improvement” within the meaning of the statute and thus the action was not barred.
 

Golomore Assoc. v. N.J. State Highway Auth., 413 A.2d 361, 173 N.J. Super. 55 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)

In this case, the court evaluated a claim by a contractor and subcontractor against the State for additional costs of construction. Plaintiffs claimed that the increased costs were due to faulty evaluations of ground elevation provided by the State prior to bidding. The bid submitted to the State was calculated using those faulty measurements and therefore did not adequately predict actual expenses. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the elevations provided by the State constituted positive averments. Therefore, when the elevation data was shown to be incorrect, contractors were entitled to recover for additional costs.