Foont-Freedenfeld Corporation v. Electro-Protective Corporation
| Decision Date | 22 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | ELECTRO-PROTECTIVE,FOONT-FREEDENFELD |
| Citation | 64 N.J. 197,314 A.2d 68 |
| Parties | CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Theodore W. Geiser, Newark, for plaintiff-appellant (Hughes, McElroy, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Newark, attorneys).
Sidney Krieger, Newark, for defendant-respondent.
On this appeal, plaintiff has expressly disclaimed any contention that the limitations of liability clause in question is arbitrary and unconscionable and should be declared unenforceable as against public policy. Rather, the argument is made that the clause (1) is invalid since it is unrelated to actual damages and therefore is in the nature of a penalty provision; and, (2) in any event, was intended to apply only to a situation where defendant breached its annual service undertaking (as distinguished from design and installation of the system) and plaintiff found it necessary to obtain the service elsewhere at a higher cost.
Also, in addition to defendant's allegedly admitted liability for breach of contract, plaintiff asserts a claim based on defendant's 'innocent misrepresentation of material fact,' on which plaintiff asserts it relied, with resultant damage approximately related to such misrepresentation.
We have considered all of plaintiff's contentions. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed for substantially the reasons expressed in its Per curiam opinion reported at 126 N.J.Super. 254, 314 A.2d 69 (1973).
Affirmed.
For affirmance: Justices JACOBS, HALL, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN and CLIFFORD, and Judge COLLESTER--6.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Jersey Bank v. Kensey
...Ibid. (citing Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. Electro-Protective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 257, 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1973), aff'd, 64 N.J. 197, 314 A.2d 68 (1974)). The elements of scienter, i.e., knowledge of the falsity and an intention to obtain an advantage by deceit, "are not essential if ......
-
United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff
...so rely to his damage." 1 Foont-Freedenfeld v. Electro-Protective, 126 N.J.Super. 254, 257, 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1973), aff'd 64 N.J. 197, 314 A.2d 68 (1974). Reasonable reliance thus constitutes a critical element of plaintiff's cause of action. See DSK Enterprises, Inc. v. United Jersey B......
-
Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello
...A.2d 13 (1956); Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. Electro-Protective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 257, 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1973), aff'd, 64 N.J. 197, 314 A.2d 68 (1974). The majority rule of law is that actual loss or injury and compensatory damages are necessary to maintain a cause of action for l......
-
Perth Amboy Iron Works, Inc. v. American Home Assur. Co.
...and was damaged. Foont-Freedenfeld v. Electro Protective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 257, 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1973), aff'd o.b. 64 N.J. 197, 314 A.2d 68 (1974). Plaintiff contends that GM and J & T fraudulently concealed the defects in the engine and that OY made "serious misrepresentations......