Globe Home Improvement Co. v. Perth Amboy Chamber of Commerce Credit Rating Bureau, Inc.

• Citation: 182 A. 641
• Decision Date: 31 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 147.,147.
• Parties: GLOBE HOME IMPROVEMENT CO. v. PERTH AMBOY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CREDIT RATING BUREAU, Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

182 A. 641

GLOBE HOME IMPROVEMENT CO.

v. PERTH AMBOY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CREDIT RATING BUREAU, Inc.

No. 147.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 31, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where there is no fraud or deceit, a credit bureau contracting for a consideration to supply to plaintiff information regarding credit is answerable therefor according to the terms of its contract and to those alone.

2. Contracts against liability for negligence are valid except in those cases where a public interest is involved.

The CHANCELLOR, DONGES, Justice, and RAFFERTY, Judge, dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by the Globe Home Improvement Company against the Perth Amboy Chamber of Commerce Credit Rating Bureau, Incorporated. From a judgment for defendant after entry of an order striking the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Silber & Silber, of Newark, for appellant.

Blanchard & Carey and Robert Carey, Jr., all of Newark, for respondent.

WOLFSKEIL, Judge.

This appeal brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff after entry of an order striking plaintiff's complaint. There are three grounds of appeal, only two of which are argued. The first is that it was error to strike the complaint. The second that the trial court refused to strike the answer.

The action is against a credit bureau for having negligently omitted from its report a mortgage on the property of the person as to whom a credit report was asked. The report was furnished in pursuance of a written contract which provided that such report "is based upon information obtained in good faith by the agent from sources deemed reliable, the accuracy of which, however, is in no manner guaranteed." The complaint sounds solely in tort "because of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in making and preparing the report." There is no allegation involving bad faith and the contract is ignored.

It must be borne in mind that this is a case of contract and not of service. The defendant contracted for a small consideration to supply the plaintiff with information regarding credit. The defendant was not employed as a servant or an agent to do work for the plaintiff; it was an independent contractor. It was answerable therefor according to the terms of its contract and according to those alone. The plaintiff, realizing that all that it could recover for breach of the contract, by reason of the limitation of liability, was the $2.75 paid therefor, sought to hold the defendant for negligence as though it were its agent employed to gather information. Undoubtedly but for the limitation the defendant would have been answerable for any damage naturally resulting to the plaintiff by reason of the breach. It certainly would not be liable because of negligence, but be cause it had broken its contract.

The plaintiff had a right to make an unlimited contract without restriction if the defendant was willing to furnish the information with the sole liability therein provided that would attach thereto, in which case it is to be assumed that it would have paid a premium consistent with that obligation; or it had a right as it did to make a contract presumably for a much smaller sum in which good faith alone in the performance of the contract would be implied. If parties who make ordinary contracts cannot agree to limit the extent of liability, it is difficult to see where such a ruling would lead us....