Meola v. Gorga
| Decision Date | 25 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A--410,A--410 |
| Citation | 99 A.2d 545,27 N.J.Super. 390 |
| Parties | MEOLA et al. v. GORGA. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
J. Mortimer Rubenstein, Patterson, for appellant (Rubenstein & Kosoff, Patterson, attorneys).
James A. Major, Hackensack, for respondents (John A. Christie, Hackensack, attorney).
Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JAYNE, J.A.D.
The present appeal introduces legal rather than factual subjects for consideration. A sketch of the factual premise will suffice.
In January 1950 the plaintiff Emile Meola observed a dwelling house under construction by Park Manor Homes at 0--76 Blue Hill Avenue, Fairlawn, New Jersey. Its interior including the cellar was unfinished and he noticed at the time that upon the earth bottom of the cellar stood as much as six feet in depth of water. He doubtless mentally envisioned the dwelling in its completed state and resolved to acquire it upon its entire construction, together with the parcel of land upon which it was being constructed.
At his initial meeting with a representative of Park Manor Homes, the builder, at which he made a deposit of $100 in contemplation of the future execution of a contract, he alluded to the quantity of water in the basement and was told: Parenthetically we pause to explain that mention is made of this conversation merely to disclose that the condition of the cellar entered the minds and contemplations of the parties at the inception of their negotiations, eventually casting its reflection on the subsequent claim of the plaintiffs.
Gorga Manor Corporation became the successor in interest of Park Manor Homes and on February 11, 1950 the plaintiffs and Gorga Manor Corporation executed a contract in writing wherein the corporation covenanted to complete the construction of the house and convey the property to the plaintiffs for the purchase price of $14,300.
In our appellate review of the present case we regard it to be exceedingly significant that the only express covenant in the contract relative to the essentials of the construction of the house is contained in paragraph 10 of the instrument and reads:
'It is understood that the building under construction is to be completed prior to the closing and shall be substantially completed similar to premises 0--71 Blue Hill Avenue, Fair Lawn, N.J., and that the premises shall be completed with all the necessary fixtures and appliances ready for occupancy ready for closing.'
The contract was thereafter assigned by Gorga Manor Corporation to the defendant, Fiore Gorga. On August 15, 1950 the plaintiffs and the representative of the defendant assembled at the place designated for the consummation of the sale. There was at that time evidence of the seepage of water into the cellar. The plaintiffs declined to consummate the purchase of the property solely because of the stated defective condition of the cellar. Conciliatory mediations ensued, eventuating in the execution of the following memorandum by the agent of the defendant and upon which the plaintiffs' cause of action was based:
'In consideration of the closing of title to 076 Blue Hill Ave. Fairlawn NJ. the undersigned hereby agree that if any leaks or seepage of water into cellar occurs within a period of six months from this date, the same will be repaired by the undersigned at his own cost and expense.
'Dated August 15, 1950
'Fiore Gorga
'by Jerry Gorga
'Atty in Fact'
The plaintiffs thereupon paid the balance of the purchase price, acquired the property, and entered into possession of it the following day, but during the succeeding six months water, according to the evidence, continued to enter the cellar. The defendant failed to perform his promise, thus necessitating expenditures by the plaintiffs to recover which the plaintiffs prosecuted the present action. The jury resolved that the defendant had failed to perform his contractual obligation. The plaintiffs have a judgment against the defendant for $1,500 damages, from which the defendant appeals.
Two questions are debated by counsel. Was there proof of a valid consideration for the agreement of August 15, 1950? Was the testimony relating to the parol statements made by the parties prior to the written contract of February 11, 1950 admissible?
Although the subjects are somewhat provocative of the undertaking, we shall not endeavor here to cite and anatomize the well-established decisional law anent adequate and valid considerations and the admissibility of parol evidence in actions Ex contractu. The communication of the influential reasons for our conclusion to affirm the judgment will, it seems to us, be ample if we disclose our persuasion that there was evidence from which the jury could logically infer that the defendant chose to compromise a claim made by the plaintiffs in good faith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. N. Axinn Co. v. Gibraltar Development, Inc.
... ... Lawrence v. Tandy & Allen, 14 N.J. 1, 100 A.2d 891 (1953); Schlossman's, Inc., v. Radcliffe, 3 N.J. 430, 70 A.2d 493 (1950), and Meola ... v. Gorga, 27 N.J.Super. 390, 99 A.2d 545 (App.Div.1953), cited to us by defendant, are clearly distinguishable on their facts. Unlike in those ... ...
- Syle v. Freedley, A--429
-
Ackerman v. Citron, A--599
...126 A.2d 348 (1956); Atlantic Northern Airlines, Inc. v. Schwimmer, 12 N.J. 293, 303, 304, 96 A.2d 652 (1953); Meola v. Gorga, 27 N.J.Super. 390, 395, 99 A.2d 545 (App.Div.1953); and see Loria's Garage, Inc. v. Smith, 49 N.J.Super. 242, 139 A.2d 430 (App.Div.1958). Consider, moreover, that ......
-
Lawrence v. Tandy & Allen, A--43
...of the claim. * * * The core of a contract is the agglutinated intentions of the parties thereto.' Meola v. Gorga, 27 N.J.Super. 390, 99 A.2d 545, 547, (App.Div.1953). A court may justifiably exhibit considerable reluctance in applying a legal doctrine if it is apparent by so doing essentia......