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
Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnqr2Rhiqhg
Car dealership complaints
Selling Damages Cars Violated the NJ Consumer Fraud Act under many circumstances.
As previously reported on the internet and through the Division of Consumer Affairs, specifically, four Sansone dealerships signed a consent agreement with the State to cease various business practices. Interestingly enough as part of the settlement, there is a complaints program. The defendants in the lawsuit are required to submit a copy of the consent judgment to its officers, directors and owners within 30 days of the settlement and then, within 45 days, the defendants shall provide the state with proof that they have been supplied a copy of the consent judgment with an alphabetic list of the names.
Then, within 60 days, the specific Sansone dealership shall provide the plaintiff with a memorandum detailing the specific policies and procedures within the advertisements and websites required by the motor vehicle advertising regulations as compliance as part of the consent judgment. The dealerships are required to make available for inspecting and copying, at no cost to the plaintiffs, all policies and procedures applicable to this portion of the settlement.
This is significant. If now a consumer were to institute suit against Sansone for one of the actual or legal theories which were covered as part of the state investigation and settlement, Sansone would effectively be on notice and, in essence, have committed an intentional violation of the law. If the officers and directors are required to know and required to review the appropriate compliance procedures and policies to make sure that the program is followed, the only reasonable conclusion would be that Sansone would be aware of any of the appropriate violations. You would think that this would be necessary as part of running a dealership, but apparently it is not.
New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
