VAZQUEZ HELDMAN
  • Home
  • Areas of Practice
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Construction Law & Litigation
    • Business Law & Litigation
    • Healthcare & Pharmacy Law
  • Contact
  • Blog

News & ​Notes

Failure to Meet Contractual Timeframe not a Violation of the CFA

10/24/2019

 
New Jersey Residential home improvement contractors are required to provide clients with an estimated timeframe for the completion of the work.  In a recent unpublished case from the Appellate Division, a contractor provided the homeowner with a 45-day time period from the date of the contract to complete an addition.  However, due permit delays and other reasons, the work did not begin until months later.  Despite the contractual time-frame not being met, the court found that there was no violation of the CFA, stating that the homeowners, "were aware that ... [c]onstruction began approximately 120 days from the contract date, yet defendants did not cancel the contract or allege a breach at that time."  Furthermore, although a change order for additional work was never signed by the homeowner, a regulatory violation of the CFA, the court found that since there was no ascertainable loss suffered by the homeowner as a result of the regulatory violation, the contractor was not liable for damages under the CFA.  (MYCWHome, LLC v. White, et. al.)

Arbitration Provision in Contract Found to be Unenforceable

10/10/2019

 
A recent non-precedential Appellate Division case serves as a reminder that not all arbitration provisions are drafted equally. At issue in a residential construction suit was the defendant-contractor's arbitration provision which required an aggrieved homeowner to file a claim with the American Arbitration Association in lieu of filing an action in court. However, the provision at issue did not contain specific language which would have informed a reasonable homeowner that by going to arbitration they would be "waiving a right to seek relief in a court of law." (see Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., 219 N.J. 430 (2014)).  This proved fatal to the defendant-contractor's invocation of arbitration, and the defendant-contractor's motion to compel arbitration was reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for (expensive) litigation. This serves as a reminder for all businesses and individuals with arbitration clauses in their contracts to have same reviewed by an attorney knowledgeable on the subject matter.  (Becker v. Ollie Slocum and Son, Inc.)

    Authors

    Peter J. Vazquez, Jr.
    Jeffrey Heldman
    ​Steven Vazquez

    Archives

    February 2021
    December 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019

    Categories

    All
    Business Law
    Construction Law
    Consumer Fraud Act
    Healthcare Law
    Land Use & Zoning
    Real Estate Law

    RSS Feed

Office Phone
973-434-7062

Peter J. Vazquez, Jr.
pvazquez@vazquezfirm.com

Jeffrey Heldman
jheldman@vazquezfirm.com

Steven Vazquez
svazquez@vazquezfirm.com

​Copyright © 2017-2021    ​
  • Home
  • Areas of Practice
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Construction Law & Litigation
    • Business Law & Litigation
    • Healthcare & Pharmacy Law
  • Contact
  • Blog