Waiver In Gym Membership Agreement Not Too Broad And Not Barred By TCCWNA

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Contract(pd)Gym memberships are notoriously difficult to cancel. As a result, there is a fair amount of litigation over the cancellation, or attempted cancellation, of gym memberships, many of which are class actions. A recent Appellate Division decision, Mellet v. Aquasid, LLC, was one such lawsuit. As an added bonus, the decision also involves the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA), a once relatively obscure statute that has recently become popular — or controversial depending on which side of a lawsuit you find yourself — and about which I have written here and here.

In Mellet, defendant was a health club. Plaintiffs were members of the health club. Plaintiffs attempted to cancel their memberships but their requests were declined and the health club continued to bill each of them. When plaintiffs failed to pay, defendant attempted to collect these unpaid fees — which included monthly dues, late fees, collection fees, and administrative fees –  from plaintiffs. In response, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, alleging that defendant's membership agreement and the fees it charged violated New Jersey law, including TCCWNA. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, plaintiffs raised a number of issues, but the most interesting one involved its claim that the broad waiver in the membership agreement violated TCCWNA. It provides, in part, that "[n]o seller . . . shall . . . enter into any written  consumer contract  . . . which includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller . . . as established by State or Federal law at the time." Its purpose was to prevent deceptive practices in consumer contracts by prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties, but it has become a favorite of plaintiff's attorneys because consumers can sue under TCCWNA even if they have suffered no injury or loss, and because the statute allows successful plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees as part of their damages. 

Continue reading “Waiver In Gym Membership Agreement Not Too Broad And Not Barred By TCCWNA”

If You Cancel Your Wedding Reception Can You Get Your Money Back From The Venue? (Or, When Is A Liquidated Damage Clause Enforceable?)

                    by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Wedding reception (pd)In the past, I have written about engagements gone wrong, including a case involving a failed (alleged) engagement and the return of a (purported) engagement ring that the recipient initially claimed to have lost, but later (apparently) found, and marriages gone wrong, including a case asking whether a marriage can be annulled because of a former wife's equitable fraud, but never a marriage reception gone wrong. With the Appellate Division's recent decision in Corona v. Stryker Golf, LLC, I am finally able to fill this gap in my failed relationship scholarship. On a more routine note, Corona also provides a helpful primer on the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in contracts.

In Corona, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to hold her wedding reception at defendant's catering hall. Defendant agreed to provide the venue, food, and beverages for a contract price of approximately $12,012.80. The contract required an initial, non-refundable deposit of $2,500. Plaintiff made this payment and two subsequent payments of $5,166.35 and $1,725.35, for a total of $9,391.70. The contract contained the following provision regarding cancellation:

Cancellation under any circumstances is not acceptable and, in addition to forfeiting all deposits, the Patron will remain responsible for paying the entire balance of the contract price (excluding service charge) for the Event even if the Event does not occur.

Unfortunately, six months before the reception was to be held, plaintiff notified defendant that she was cancelling the wedding. Relying on the cancellation provision in the contract, defendant refused to return any of the money Plaintiff had paid under the contract. Plaintiff sued. Both parties moved for summary judgment. After trying to settle the case, the trial court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint. The trial court held that plaintiff "twice breached the contract," although the decision does not explain how. On the issue of damages, defendant argued that the liquidated damages clause was "grossly disproportionate to [any] actual damages sustained by defendant and thus unenforceable as a penalty." The trial court rejected this argument, holding that the terms of the contract were "clear and unambiguous," therefore the court was required to enforce those terms as written.

Plaintiff appealed and the  Appellate Division reversed.

Continue reading “If You Cancel Your Wedding Reception Can You Get Your Money Back From The Venue? (Or, When Is A Liquidated Damage Clause Enforceable?)”

Supreme Court Issues Important Decision On Truth In Lending Act

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

Please check out an article I wrote for law360.com on the U.S. Supreme Court's  recent decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans. Here is the opening paragraph:

On Jan. 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans (No. 13-684) and resolved a circuit split on an important issue arising under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601-1677 (“TILA”). Under TILA, a borrower has the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the loan is consummated. To exercise this right, borrowers must “notify the creditor” of their intention to rescind the loan within three years. The question in Jesinoski was whether a borrower satisfies this requirement by sending written notice to a lender of its intent to rescind or whether the borrower must file a lawsuit within the three-year statutory period. In recent years, a circuit split had developed over this issue. In Jesinoski, the Supreme Court resolved this split, holding that written notice is sufficient.

Check out the rest of the article here.