The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
An invoice is a mere detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost or price of the things invoiced. Dows v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee, 91 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 214 (1875); Sturn v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093 (1893). It has been held that a notation appearing on an invoice accompanying goods ordered by telephone did not constitute a contract; that an invoice is not a contract; and that silence may not operate as an assent. Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. Schlanger, 287 N.Y. 400, 40 N.E.2d 225 (1942). Albrecht Chemical Co. v. Anderson Trading Corp, 298 N.Y. 437, 84 N.E.2d 625 (1949). The retention of goods by a purchaser with notice of conditions or limitation of liability may in some instances amount to assent, depending upon proof of the principles of contract. Dale v. See, 51 N.J.L. 378, 18 A. 306, 5 L.R.A. 583 (Sup.Ct.1889). 1 Williston on Contracts (Rev. ed.), Sec. 91-91D. Hoffman Laroche v. Weisbard 19 N.J.Super 210, 245 (App.Div 1952).
This is especially true since there is no requirement for the plaintiff’s signature and there is no indication in the defendant’s submissions as to the nature and extent of the transmittal processing or the method by which the transaction was completed. There are too many factual issues to permit the court to assume that the rear of an unsigned invoice is the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. Quite simply, there is nothing in the terms or conditions that indicate these are exclusive and shall be deemed the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties for the purchase of the boat.
The issue is the enforceability of a forum selection clause.
The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the reverse side of an unsigned invoice constitutes all of the terms and conditions of the contract for the plaintiff’s purchase of the subject engines. It is too early in the litigation to make this determination. When the contract terms are ambiguous and the parties dispute their meaning, construction of the contract and application of any evidence submitted to prove the surrounding circumstances are for the jury. See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 70 N.J. Super. 520 524 (App. Div. 1961).
A review of the “invoice” demonstrates that the purchase price is on the front of the document and various terms are on the rear of the document. There is no indication that the plaintiff signed, was asked to sign, or actually was required to sign this invoice. There is no proof that the plaintiff even reviewed the rear of the invoice. There is no indication by the terms of the conditions at the rear the contract that by accepting delivery of the boat the plaintiff accepts all of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, this matter is not ripe for summary judgment at this time because there is potentially factual issue as to whether or not the reverse side of the “invoice” is determinative of the nature and extent of the relationship between the parties, whether or not there was an ongoing relationship between the parties prior to the date of the purchase, and whether or not the terms and conditions at the rear of the contract were intended to be a part of the transaction.
What is a forum Selection Clause?
In the modern business climate there are many landmines signing standardized contracts:
ARBITRATION CLAUSES FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES
Selling Damages Cars Violated the NJ Consumer Fraud Act under many circumstances.
SANSONE SETTLEMENT
One of the extensive provisions of the Sansone dealerships’ settlement in the State of New Jersey is that they must disclose the prior use of the automobile including rental. Over the years, I have litigated numerous cases, with non-Sansone dealerships, where it has been alleged that the prior use of the automobile in the case of a rental must be disclosed. The dealerships would take the position that this is a non-material fact and, as such, need not be disclosed. I have taken the position numerous times, and have been successful in doing so, that this is a material fact and must be disclosed.
Ultimately this is very fair and that significant prior use must be told to the plaintiffs or the purchaser of the automobile. If the dealership thinks it might make a difference in the purchaser’s decision-making process, then it must be disclosed. Apparently now, the State has taken the position that a prior rental use of a vehicle is deemed a material fact. Therefore, a dealership cannot say the prior use of an automobile in the case of a rental is a non-material fact.
The state resolved a claim against Spectrum Home Furnishings Inc., Charles Serouya & Son Inc., also known as Gallery, CS&S Inc., Charles Serouya Inc., Spectrum Home Furnishings Inc., Charles Serouya & Son Inc, also known as Gallery. The state filed suit against these entities alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Refund Policy Disclosure Act, the regulations governing disclosure of refund policy in retail establishments, accepted mail order practice and regulations, regulations governing delivering of household furniture and regulations governing general advertising. The entities who were subject to this lawsuit filed by the state entered into a consent order to resolve the matter. In essence, the defendants agreed not to violate any laws and to pay various fines.
New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog