Juice Bar Corp. v. Township Committee of Neptune, A--247

• Decision Date: 02 June 1955
• Docket Number: No. A--247,A--247
• Citation: 115 A.2d 131,36 N.J.Super. 164
• Parties: JUICE BAR CORP., a corporation of the State of New York Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, Township of Neptune, a municipal corporation, John W. Knox, Clerk of the Township of Neptune, and Sommer Brothers Construction Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Appellants. Edward SCHWARTZ and Sydelle Holding Co., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, In the COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, John W. Knox, and Sommer Bros. Construction Company, a corporation of New Jersey, Defendants-Appellants. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 164

36 N.J.Super. 164

115 A.2d 131

JUICE BAR CORP., a corporation of the State of New York Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, Township of

Neptune, a municipal corporation, John W. Knox, Clerk of the

Township of Neptune, and Sommer Brothers Construction

Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey,

Defendants-Appellants.

Edward SCHWARTZ and Sydelle Holding Co., a corporation of

the State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, In the COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, a municipal

corporation of the State of New Jersey, John W. Knox, and

Sommer Bros. Construction Company, a corporation of New

Jersey, Defendants-Appellants.

No. A--247.

Superior Court of New Jersey.

Appellate Division.

Argued May 9, 1955.

Decided June 2, 1955.

James R. Laird, Jr., Asbury Park, argued the cause for defendants-appellants Township Committee of Township of Neptune, etc. (D. Joseph DeVito, Asbury Park, attorney for defendant-appellant Sommer Bros. Construction Company).

Julius Stein, Newark, argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents Edward Schwartz and Sydelle Holding Co. (Stein & Feinseth, Newark, attorneys; Benjamin I. Kreitzberg, Hillside, on the brief).

Alexander Krauss, Newark, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent Juice Bar Corp. (Levy & Krauss, Newark, attorneys; Paul E. Parker, Newark, on the brief).

Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JAYNE, J.A.D.

The Township of Neptune, in the County of Monmouth, had acquired title to a group of several vacant lots mainly by means of tax foreclosures. The lots were not needed for public use and the township committee on July 27, 1954 resolved to offer them for sale in congregation to the highest bidder after public advertisement at a minimum price of $40,000. The disposal of the lots was evidently intended to be accomplished pursuant to the authority conferred by N.J.S.A. 40:60--26(a).

The published notice designated August 12, 1954 as the date of the sale, and in addition to other pertinent information it exhibited the following conditions and specifications:

'1. Fifty per cent (50%) of the purchase money in excess of the $40,000.00 deposit to be paid at the time the lands and premises are struck off. If the money is not paid at that time the lands and premises may be put up and re-sold immediately. The balance to be paid within ten (10) days upon the delivery of a bargain and sale deed without covenants.

'2. The said lands and premises are sold subject to all municipal, state and Federal ordinances, statutes and regulations affecting the use of the said lands and premises, and subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in prior deeds affecting said lands and premises.

'3. No bids will be accepted at the sale unless the bidder has previously deposited with the Township Treasurer cash or a certified check in an amount of not less than $40,000 no later than three (3) days prior to the date of the sale.

'4. All bidders shall submit plans of the type of buildings proposed to be erected at least three (3) days prior to the date of the sale, in order that they may be examined and approved by the Building Inspector, or other official designated by the Township Committee.

'5. The successful bidder shall be required to erect dwellings, construct or reconstruct all roads adjoining said lots, provide curbs, water, sanitary sewers, and whatever other service or requirement within a reasonable time after taking title. All bidders shall, at least three (3) days prior to the date of sale, submit evidence of financial responsibility to complete the erection of dwellings, construction and reconstruction of roads, curbs, water, sanitary sewers, and ability to provide for other required services.

'6. The successful bidder shall at the time of delivery of the deed pay, as an additional purchase price, a sum equal to the amount of tax based on the last assessed valuation from the first of the month after the date of the sale until the end of the current year, and also all legal conveyancing fees.

'7. Any successful bidder failing to complete the sale shall forfeit to the Township of Neptune any and all moneys deposited with the bid.

'8. The sale of the hereinbefore described lands and premises is subject to confirmation by the Township Committee, which may reject any or all bids and may hold any bid for a period of fifteen (15) days before acting thereon.'

Obviously the sale was intended to be a public one conducted on the basis of competitive bidding. An indispensable element of such a sale is the existence of a definite common standard to which all of the competitive proposals alike relate. A common pattern is the foundation of just competition.

The basic philosophy of our statutes respecting municipal contractual action is that economy must be secured, extravagance forbidden, and opportunities of fraud or favoritism suppressed. Waszen v. City of Atlantic City, 1 N.J. 272, 283, 63 A.2d 255 (1949); Weinacht v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of Bergen, 3 N.J. 330, 333, 70 A.2d 69 (1949); Johnson v. Atlantic City, 85 N.J.L. 145, 88 A. 950 (Sup.Ct.1913); Armitage v. City of Newark, 86 N.J.L. 5, 90 A. 1035 (Sup.Ct.1914); Tice v. Commissioners of City of Long Branch, 98 N.J.L. 214, 119 A. 25, (E. & A.1922); Rankin v. Board of Education of Egg Harbor Twp., 135 N.J.L. 299, 51 A.2d 194 (E. & A.1947); Markey v. City of Bayonne, 24 N.J.Super. 105, 93 A.2d 589, (App.Div. 1952); Shore Gas & Oil Co. v. Spring Lake Borough, 27 N.J.Super. 33, 37, 98 A.2d 689 (App.Div.1953).

Our attention fastens upon the conditions and specifications stated in the fourth and fifth paragraphs. In the fifth we observe that the successful bidder shall be required to erect dwellings. The required or minimum number, the size, the type other than dwellings, the minimum cost of construction, whether all of similar type, and upon what lots, are some of the unspecified particulars of supreme importance. The successful bidder is obliged to construct or reconstruct all roads adjoining the lots. Which roads, if any, are to be reconstructed? Of what materials are the roads to be constructed, and of what width? Moreover 'curbs, water, sanitary sewers, and whatever other service or requirement' are to be installed 'within a reasonable time after taking title.' Of what nature is 'the other service or requirement'? Electricity connections, perhaps? What period of time is to be deemed reasonable?

The fourth condition seems to expose the contemplation that each of the bidders was to be at liberty to choose the type of 'buildings' he expects to erect. The plans devised by the individual bidder were to be previously submitted for the approval of the 'Building Inspector or other official designated by the Township Committee.'

And then whatever type of dwellings the bidder may himself plan to erect, whether permissible cabins or stately mansions, and whatever the class of roads, curbs, and sewers he proposed to construct and install, the bidder was required to submit three days prior to the sale 'evidence of financial responsibility' to complete the eventual development and of his 'ability to provide for other required services.' (Emphasis supplied.) We would suppose that the requisite evidence of the financial responsibility of each bidder need only be commensurate with the cost of the type and class of the improvements which he himself expects to provide.

While the pertinent statute...