Winoka Village v. Tate
| Decision Date | 19 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A--544,A--544 |
| Citation | 84 A.2d 626,16 N.J.Super. 330 |
| Parties | WINOKA VILLAGE, Inc. v. TATE. . Appellate Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Albert B. Melnik, Camden, argued the cause for appellant.
Howard S. Tilton, Camden, argued the cause for respondent (Waddington & Tilton, Camden, attorneys).
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and Wm. J. BRENNAN, Jr.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., J.A.D.
Plaintiff sued in the Camden County District Court to recover rents under written leases, one for an apartment and another for a garage, which were vacated by defendant before the end of the term. The defense was wilful fraud. The trial judge found that fraud had been proved and entered judgment for defendant.
The fraud charged consisted in alleged wilfully fraudulent misrepresentations by one Ecklund, plaintiff's superintendent, on two occasions prior to defendant's execution and delivery of the leases and once thereafter before he took possession, 'that it was the policy of the company to forfeit a month's deposit in case a tenant had to move before the end of the term and nothing more would be required of him'; 'that the term of the lease is nothing to worry about.' Defendant, an electronics engineer and a college graduate, read the leases before executing them and was aware that each provided a term beginning January 15, 1949 and ending December 31, 1951. He deposited one month's rent as security, applicable, according to a provision in each lease, except in case of default, to the last month's rental. He vacated in September, 1950. His testimony was that he signed the leases in reliance upon Ecklund's alleged representations, after telling Ecklund at the times mentioned that he could not sign three-year leases because he was uncertain of his tenure in the position he then held and might change his employment.
Ecklund denied the making of the alleged representations or that there had been discussed at any time the contingency that defendant might change his employment. He and plaintiff's president testified that when applicants were reluctant to sign three-year leases for such reasons it was the practice for Ecklund to make an appropriate note upon the lease application and for plaintiff then to consider each case and if satisfied of its merit to attach riders to the three-year leases specifying the conditions upon which they were terminable before their expiration date. Defendant's application is in evidence and bears no such notation.
The judgment must be reversed. Defendant signed the leases with knowledge that their specific provisions bound him until December 31, 1951. The alleged oral misrepresentations, being contradictory of the undertakings expressly dealt with by the writings, are not effectual in that circumstance to avoid the obligations he knowingly assumed. 'The general rule is clear that a parol agreement which is in terms contradictory of the express words of a contemporaneous or subsequent written contract, properly interpreted, necessarily is ineffectual and evidence of it inadmissible, whether the parol agreement be called collateral or not.' Williston, Contracts (Rev.ed.1936), sec. 639; Restatement, Contracts (1932), vol. 1, sec. 237. Men are usually bound by the import of documents signed by them and which they had the ability and opportunity to read. See Commercial Credit Corp. v. Coover, 101 N.J.L. 530, 129 A. 187 (E. & A. 1925); Williams v. Leisen 72 N.J.L. 410, 60 A. 1096 (Sup.Ct.1905); Peter W. Kero, Inc., v. Terminal Construction Corp., 6 N.J. 361, 78 A.2d 814 (1951). Notable exceptions are when the signature is obtained by fraud or imposition in the execution of the contract, as by reason of a wilful misrepresentation as to its purport or contents; McDonald v. Central R.R. Co., 89 N.J.L. 251, 98 A. 391 (E. & A. 1916); Peter W. Kero, Inc., v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Cigna Corp.
...may not seek to contradict the express terms of a writing to avoid obligations he knowingly assumes. Winoka Village v. Tate, 16 N.J.Super. 330, 333-34, 84 A.2d 626 (App.Div.1951) ("Men are usually bound by the import of documents signed by them and which they had the ability and opportunity......
-
Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All Prof'l Realty, Inc.
...Inc. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., No. 08–CV–3947, 2009 WL 1873583, at *5 (D.N.J. June 29, 2009) (citing Winoka Village, Inc. v. Tate, 16 N.J.Super. 330, 334, 84 A.2d 626 (App.Div.1952)). Here, the alleged representation that repayment would not be required contradicts the repayment provision ......
-
Autobacs Strauss, Inc. v. Autobacs Seven Co. (In re Autobacs Strauss, Inc.)
...on it (or any other oral statements) because the R & S APA had an integration clause. For this proposition, AB7 cites two cases, Winoka Vill., Inc. v. Tate263 and Braunstein v. Benjamin Berman, Inc.264 Neither case, however, as applied to the facts in this case, is persuasive. Here, as in C......
-
Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp.
...(Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. 263, 48 P.2d 659.) The law in New Jersey is the same. (Winoka Village v. Tate, supra, 84 A.2d at p. 628 [" 'The general rule is clear that a parol agreement which is in terms contradictory of the express words of a contempora......