Party That Drafted Arbitration Provision Moves To Have Provision Deemed Unenforceable. It Lost.

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

Most cases involving commercial contracts and arbitration provisions follow a similar pattern. They generally involve consumers arguing that they cannot be bound by arbitration clauses found in the fine print of boilerplate contracts that they had no ability to negotiate. But Shah v. T & J Builders, LLC turns this scenario on its head. In Shah, plaintiffs, the consumers, drafted the contract that contained the arbitration clause but later argued that it was unenforceable. To make matters worse (or at least more unusual), plaintiffs took this position after participating in an arbitration proceeding with defendant for two years. Not surprisingly, plaintiffs efforts to have their own arbitration clause deemed unenforceable were unsuccessful.

In Shah, plaintiffs hired defendant to build an extension on their home. The contract, which was "heavily negotiated between the parties," albeit without counsel, was drafted by plaintiffs. It contained an arbitration clause that required the parties to arbitrate "any dispute [ ] relative to the performance of [the] contract that [they could not] satisfactorily resolve." After one such dispute arose, plaintiffs terminated the contract and defendant filed an arbitration demand. Plaintiffs answered the demand and filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract and violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Nowhere in their answer or counterclaim did plaintiffs address, much less challenge, the arbitration clause.

The parties, through counsel, then pursued their claims in arbitration for almost two years, exchanging discovery and expert reports, participating in a site inspection, and participating in several conferences with the arbitrator. Two weeks before the scheduled arbitration date, the parties submitted their pre-arbitration briefs. This is where the fun began.

Continue reading “Party That Drafted Arbitration Provision Moves To Have Provision Deemed Unenforceable. It Lost.” →

Clear Arbitration Provision, Negotiated By Sophisticated Party While Represented By Counsel Deemed Enforceable

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

The headline of this post is a little like "Dog bites man." But, given the recent trend in New Jersey of "man bites dog" type cases where courts have invalidated arbitration provisions that once seemed unambiguous (look here, here, and here for examples), the headline should make more sense.

In Columbus Circle NJ LLC v. Island Construction Co., LLC, the Appellate Division enforced an arbitration provision contained in a construction contract. Plaintiff was a single-member LLC that retained defendant to build a $1.9 million home on the bay in Avalon, New Jersey. Plaintiff's representative circulated an initial draft contract for the project that used the standard American Institute of Architects (AIA) forms. These forms contain a provision entitled "BINDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION," which, as the name suggests, requires the parties to choose "the method of binding dispute resolution" for any claims between them that are not resolved by mediation. In the draft it circulated, plaintiff's representative checked off "Arbitration pursuant to Section 15.4 of AIA Document A201-2007," rather than "Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction." Before it was signed, the attorney for the LLC's sole member reviewed the draft and proposed changes, as did defendant, but none of these changes appear to have altered the dispute resolution provision.

During construction, disagreements arose between the parties regarding the cost of the project, leading both parties to terminate the contract. When mediation apparently failed, defendant filed a demand for arbitration. Three months later, plaintiff sued in state court. Defendant successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and compel arbitration, and Plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading “Clear Arbitration Provision, Negotiated By Sophisticated Party While Represented By Counsel Deemed Enforceable” →

Separate And Distinct Signature Required To Enforce Personal Guaranty From Corporate Officer or Director

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

In a recent unpublished decision, the Appellate Division again reminded us that a personal guaranty cannot be enforced unless the person against whom it is being enforced signed the guaranty. This may sound like an obvious reminder, but the issue comes up from time to time, particularly where a contract is entered into with a corporation and purports to contain a personal guaranty on behalf of an individual officer of the corporation. Unless the officer signs the contract in his or her personal capacity — i.e., not just on behalf of the corporation as an officer of the corporation — the guaranty will not be enforceable. I have blogged about this before.

In Herz v. 141 Bloomfield Avenue Corporation, plaintiffs leased property to the corporate defendant. The lease contained a provision whereby the individual defendant, the corporate defendant's president, agreed to be personally liable for all "obligations, rents (past and future), and damages" due under the lease. The individual defendant signed the lease, but did so only on behalf of the corporate defendant — the lease contained a signature block for the corporate defendant, but did not contain a separate signature block for the individual defendant.

After default, plaintiffs sued both the corporate defendant and the individual defendant. The individual defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that he only signed the lease on behalf of the corporation and therefore could not be held liable under the personal guaranty. The trial court agreed and plaintiffs appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Continue reading “Separate And Distinct Signature Required To Enforce Personal Guaranty From Corporate Officer or Director” →

“Swimmers Only Between Flags” (Or The Problem With “Plain Meaning”)

by: Peter J. Gallagher

Here is a link to one of my articles that was recently published on Law360.com. The original title was "'Swimmers Only Between Flags' Or The Problem With 'Plain Meaning'" but the editors shortened it by removing the part about the swmmers. The sign that inspired the article (if "inspired" is not too obnoxious) is at the top of this post, and here is the opening paragraph of the article:

I was at the beach recently and passed a sign that read “Swimmers Only Between Flags.” Being a lawyer, I could not simply nod knowingly at the sign and keep walking. Instead, I thought: “well, that is ambiguous.” Did it mean that swimmers were only allowed between the flags (and not outside them) or that only swimmers were allowed between the flags (and not, for example, surfers or boogie boarders)? I mentioned it to my wife, who told me to make sure I put sunscreen on the kids. But, the sign stuck with me that day, and again when I read the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Abramski v. United States (No. 12-1493), a decision that involved competing interpretations of the “plain meaning” of a statute regulating the purchase of guns.

I hope you enjoy the article.

When Do Condominium Associations Have Standing To Sue Under The Consumer Fraud Act?

by: Peter J. Gallagher

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division restated and clarified the rules regarding when a condominium association has standing to sue a developer. In Belmont Condominium Association v. Geibel, an association sued the sponsor/developer/contractor of the Belmont, a seven-story, thirty-four unit condominium in Hoboken, asserting common law fraud and negligence claims along with statutory claims under both the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) and The Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”). The claims arose out of the allegedly faulty construction of the Belmont, and certain pre-construction statements from the developer, including that it had “overseen the building and renovation of Over 400 Single Family & Condominium Homes.” (Although largely irrelevant to the issues addressed by the Appellate Division, it turned out that the Belmont was actually the first building that the developer’s owner and general manager had ever constructed.) As it relates to the faulty construction, the association alleged that the building was “plagued by water leaks” almost immediately after construction was complete. These leaks impacted both the individual units and the common elements. After years of repairs that did not correct the problem, the association sued the developer. The association argued that construction defects were the cause of the water filtration, while the developer blamed the problems on poor and inadequate maintenance.

Among other things, the developer in Belmont argued that the association lacked standing to bring claims under the CFA. At the outset, the Appellate Division observed that New Jersey courts take a liberal approach to standing, and have historically given wide recognition to suits by condominium associations. It then analyzed the language of the New Jersey Condominium Act (“NJCA”) to determine whether the association had standing. As it related to claims arising out of damage to the common elements, the Appellate Division held that the association had standing to sue because the NJCA vests condominium associations with the “exclusive right”(emphasis in original) to sue a developer for defects pertaining to the common elements, and generally prohibits individual unit owners from doing so.

The Appellate Division rejected the developer’s argument that the association lacked standing because it could not demonstrate reliance by the original purchasers on any of the alleged misstatements. On this point, the Appellate Division noted that reliance is not an element required to sustain a claim under the CFA. The Appellate Division also rejected the developer’s argument that the association could only recover damages for the unit owners who actually sustained damage as a result of the developer’s alleged misrepresentations. The Appellate Division held that because the NJCA allows associations to sue for damages to the common areas sustained by “any or all” of the unit owners, it was entitled to recover all of the damages necessary to repair any damages, not a prorated amount based on the number of unit owners who identified damages.

However, the Appellate Division held that the association lacked standing to sue for damages to the individual units because the NJCA only vests it with authority to sue or be sued in connection with damages to common elements. In Belmont, the damages associated with individual units all related to the windows, which the Appellate Division held were “personal to the unit owners,” and therefore not part of the Belmont’s common elements. On this point, the Appellate Division reviewed the definition of common elements contained in both the NJCA and the master deed for the Belmont, neither of which identified windows as common elements. Once the Appellate Division concluded that the windows were unit elements, not common elements, its decision on standing was a simple one because it had already concluded that an association has standing to sue for damage to common elements, but lacks standing to sue for unit elements.