Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
| Decision Date | 20 August 1976 |
| Citation | 144 N.J.Super. 74,364 A.2d 572 |
| Parties | Anthony FIORE, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Michael Vannella, Vineland, for plaintiff (Lipman, Antonelli, Batt & Dunlap, Vineland, attorneys).
Bennett I. Bardfeld, Vineland, for defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co.
MILLER, J.C.C., Temporarily Assigned.
This is an action wherein defendant moves for summary judgment on one of four counts of a complaint on the grounds that the count fails to state a cause of action. This count alleges that plaintiff has undergone extreme mental anguish as a result of (1) defendant's failure to conform to its guarantee with respect to the installation of a roof and the multiple efforts made by him to have the defects corrected, and (2) the manner in which the claim has been handled and the harassment to which he has been subjected.
The basic issue is whether damages for mental suffering are properly considered in a case regarding breach of contract. The general law is as follows:
In actions for breach of contract, damages will not be given as compensation for mental suffering, except where the breach was wanton or reckless and caused bodily harm and where it was the wanton or reckless breach of a contract to render a performance of such a character that the defendant had reason to know when the contract was made that the breach would cause mental suffering for reasons other than mere pecuniary loss. (Restatement, Contracts, § 341 at 559 (1932))
The Restatement notes that such damages are appropriate when the breach is wanton or reckless and the harm was foreseeable when the contract was made.
Williston states that mental suffering is always considered where exemplary damages are allowed and in other cases in which an element of a tort exists. He notes that most courts go further than this, and will award damages when the breach is wanton or reckless and the harm was foreseeable when the contract was made. 11 Williston, Contracts (3 ed. 1968), § 1341 at 215.
As a matter of basic justice, when one can at the time of contracting reasonably foresee mental suffering resulting from his breach of contract, he ought to be liable in damages if his actions are either willful or reckless.
Moreover, some jurisdictions have considered cases in which the breach often could not be termed 'willful,' but in which the natural consequences of the breach could reasonably be foreseen to include mental suffering. One may easily envision the application of this rule as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berman v. Allan
...See, Lemaldi v. DeTomasso of America, Inc., 156 N.J.Super. 441, 383 A.2d 1220 (Law Div.1978); Cf. Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 N.J.Super. 74, 364 A.2d 572 (Law Div.1976). Humiliation damages for the indignities inflicted by acts of invidious discrimination have been approved in the ci......
-
Picogna v. Board of Educ. of Tp. of Cherry Hill
...emotional distress. Buckley v. Trenton Saving Fund Soc'y, 111 N.J. 355, 364-66, 544 A.2d 857 (1988); Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 N.J.Super. 74, 76-77, 364 A.2d 572 (Law Div.1976); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 353 (1981); 5 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, § 1076, at 427 ......
-
Portee v. Jaffee
...Lemaldi v. De Tomaso of America, Inc., 156 N.J.Super. 441, 383 A.2d 1220 (Law Div.1978); see also Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 144 N.J.Super. 74, 77, 364 A.2d 572 (Law Div.1976). This Court has recognized that Falzone did not place express limits on negligence liability for mental o......
-
Buckley v. Trenton Saving Fund Soc.
...for recovery when it "is wanton or reckless and the harm was foreseeable when the contract was made," Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 N.J.Super. 74, 76, 364 A.2d 572 (Law Div.1976); Williston, supra, § 1341 at 215. To the extent that the wrongful dishonor of a check sounds in tort as wel......