A recent unpublished decision from the Appellate Division found there to be no enforceable contract between a buyer and seller of real estate where, despite a term sheet and letter of intent, no formal contract was signed.  The case involved the sale of commercial property in Millstone, New Jersey.  The parties exchanged a term sheet and letter of intent for the buyer to purchase the property, and the attorneys proceeded to draft and modify a formal contract for the sale.   Despite the buyer signing the negotiated contract, the seller never executed it and decided not to move forward with the transaction.  Consequently, the buyer filed suit and sought a court order directing that the sale go through.

The Buyer argued that while the language of the LOI stated that terms of the LOI would be enforceable upon a mutually-agreed upon contract. it did not specify that the contract had to be signed.  Therefore, based upon the signed LOI and the negotiated contract terms, there was an valid agreement to be enforced by the court.  However, both the trial judge and Appellate Division disagreed, finding that the evidence as a whole demonstrated an intent that a final agreement was contingent upon the parties executing a formal written contract.  Since this didn't happen, the Buyer's case was dismissed.  (501 Jersey Ave LLC v. XXXIII Associates/Riverside Center, LLC)

Attorney Jeffrey Heldman recently obtained a $300,000 judgment for a client following a four-day trial in Bergen County Superior Court.  In a case that rested upon the credibility of the witnesses (including competing handwriting experts), Mr. Heldman successfully proved to the court that the disputed debt was due.  Key to this result was Mr. Heldman’s cross-examination of both the defendant, and the defendant’s handwriting expert witness, which led to the court giving less weight to the testimony of the defendant and his expert.  In a case where the believability of the witnesses was the critical factor, such a finding was essential to the success of the firm’s client.  The case was tried in the before Judge Mary E. Thurber.  Please be advised that every case is different and has a unique set of facts.  Therefore, past results are not necessarily indicative of the outcome in any other matters.

In a recent unpublished decision of the Appellate Division, a construction management company was seeking to recover 50% of the profits from the construction of two new buildings in Montclair.  The Plaintiff claimed that he had brought the Defendant into the project because the Plaintiff did not have the bonding capacity or experience needed in order to be awarded the project, and also participated in some of the pre-construction services.  While there appears to have been some verbal discussions regarding a possible joint venture, nothing was ever put in writing and the Plaintiff did not actually participate in the construction of the buildings.

In finding that there was no joint venture created, the court found that the Plaintiff was, "unable to contribute money, property, effort, knowledge, skill or other asset to the common undertaking.  Plaintiff's contribution to the joint venture seems to have been simply connecting [the owner and the Defendant] to perform the necessary work."  The panel affirmed the trial court and found that the Plaintiff did not make any substantial contribution to the venture, and lacked the relevant construction experience and bonding capacity for the project.  Finally, the court cited Supreme Court authority for the proposition that there cannot be joint venture unless there is an agreement to share not just profits, but also losses, and that was not present here.  Consequently, the mere referral of a customer was found to be an insufficient basis to form a joint venture.  (The Holder Group, Inc. v. Pike Construction Co., LLC, et. al.)