Harmuth Engineering Co. v. Franklin Universal Bldg. Corp.

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation178 N.J.Super. 380,429 A.2d 378
Decision Date25 March 1981
PartiesHARMUTH ENGINEERING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANKLIN UNIVERSAL BUILDING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 380

178 N.J.Super. 380
429 A.2d 378
HARMUTH ENGINEERING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FRANKLIN UNIVERSAL BUILDING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued March 9, 1981.
Decided March 25, 1981.

[429 A.2d 379]

Page 382

Bennett Wasserstrum, Clifton, for defendant-appellant.

Kent A. F. Weisert and Warren B. Kasdan, East Orange, for plaintiff-respondent (Schwartz, Steinberg, Tobia, Stanziale & Gordon, East Orange, attorneys; Warren B. Kasdan, East Orange, on the brief).

Before Judges BISCHOFF, MILMED and FRANCIS.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges an order dated August 31, 1979 confirming an arbitration award and entering final judgment on behalf of plaintiff.

Defendant Franklin Universal Building Corporation and plaintiff Harmuth Engineering Company entered into a contract for the performance of construction work in Fairfield, New Jersey. Incorporated in the contract was a provision submitting all "disputes, claims or questions under the contract to binding arbitration." The contract provided for the selection of the arbitrators in the following manner:

Page 383

... Within three days after the demand for arbitration, each party shall select one arbitrator and those two arbitrators shall in turn select a third arbitrator within ten days after the demand for arbitration was issued. Parties to arbitration shall meet within fifteen days after the demand for arbitration to settle the dispute.

After the project was completed a dispute arose concerning the amount due Harmuth for employing union labor. Harmuth requested arbitration of the dispute. Franklin agreed and selected an arbitrator. Harmuth selected its arbitrator and by letter dated July 11, 1978 informed Franklin's arbitrator they were ready to select the third arbitrator. The two arbitrators could not agree upon the third panel member and requested the American Arbitration Association to designate an impartial arbitrator. James O'Hara was appointed. Thereafter a conflict of interest developed and the two arbitrators appointed by Franklin and Harmuth[429 A.2d 380] withdrew. By letter dated November 13, 1978 counsel for Harmuth suggested that the parties mutually alter their agreement which provided for three arbitrators and utilize the services of one arbitrator, namely, O'Hara, to resolve the dispute. The letter further stated:

If, within five business days of their receipt of this letter, I do not receive notification by either party that they do not wish the arbitration to proceed in this matter, I will assume that they consent to this method of proceeding....

Again, if I do not hear from either you or your clients within five business days of your receipt of this letter ... I will assume that the arrangements proposed ... is (sic) agreeable to all concerned.

By letter dated November 28, 1978 the American Arbitration Association agreed to assume sole responsibility for arbitrating the dispute. No objections from either party were received and a notice of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Labib v. Younan, Civ. A. No. 90-3682(MHC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 23 Enero 1991
    ...also Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Benson, 87 N.J. 191, 196, 432 A.2d 905 (1981); Harmuth Engineering Co. v. Franklin Universal Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.), certif. den., 87 N.J. 390, 434 A.2d 1072 (1981). This state policy mirrors federal arbitration policy, as to whic......
  • Berry v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 15 Agosto 1984
    ..."Collective Labor Contract-Arbitration" 24 A.L.R.2d 752, 756 (1952). See Harmuth Eng. Co. v. Franklin Universal Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 384, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.), certif. den. 87 N.J. 390, 434 A.2d 1072 (1981); Polshek v. Bergen Cty. Iron Works, 142 N.J.Super. 516, 521-522, 362 ......
  • City of Hartford v. Local 1716, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • 12 Enero 1996
    ...an award by one was not in conformance with the submission. Id.; accord Harmuth Engineering Co. v. Franklin Universal Building Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 429 A.2d 378 (1981). The regulations governing the present case also required that "the panel members ... meet ... to decide the matter s......
  • Highgate Development Corp. v. Kirsh
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 8 Abril 1988
    ...goes against it, litigate the question in another proceeding." 308 P.2d at 11. Cf. Harmuth Eng. Co. v. Franklin Univ. Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 383-384, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.1981) (party not estopped from challenging arbitration where it "objected to the hearing proceeding on the ba......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Labib v. Younan, Civ. A. No. 90-3682(MHC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 23 Enero 1991
    ...also Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Benson, 87 N.J. 191, 196, 432 A.2d 905 (1981); Harmuth Engineering Co. v. Franklin Universal Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.), certif. den., 87 N.J. 390, 434 A.2d 1072 (1981). This state policy mirrors federal arbitration policy, as to whic......
  • Berry v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 15 Agosto 1984
    ..."Collective Labor Contract-Arbitration" 24 A.L.R.2d 752, 756 (1952). See Harmuth Eng. Co. v. Franklin Universal Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 384, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.), certif. den. 87 N.J. 390, 434 A.2d 1072 (1981); Polshek v. Bergen Cty. Iron Works, 142 N.J.Super. 516, 521-522, 362 ......
  • City of Hartford v. Local 1716, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • 12 Enero 1996
    ...an award by one was not in conformance with the submission. Id.; accord Harmuth Engineering Co. v. Franklin Universal Building Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 429 A.2d 378 (1981). The regulations governing the present case also required that "the panel members ... meet ... to decide the matter s......
  • Highgate Development Corp. v. Kirsh
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 8 Abril 1988
    ...goes against it, litigate the question in another proceeding." 308 P.2d at 11. Cf. Harmuth Eng. Co. v. Franklin Univ. Bldg. Corp., 178 N.J.Super. 380, 383-384, 429 A.2d 378 (App.Div.1981) (party not estopped from challenging arbitration where it "objected to the hearing proceeding on the ba......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT