Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of New Jersey - 182 N.J. 210
tl;dr:
Defendant lessor lulled Plaintiff renter into believing that it had used its option in their contract, but then claimed that Plaintiff had not followed the procedure exactly enough and refused to let Plaintiff exercise the option.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 2005 case Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Center Associates, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered a dispute between a tennis club operator and a shopping center owner. The tennis club sued the shopping center for breach of contract after attempting to exercise an option for a long-term lease. The tennis club claimed to have provided proper notice, but the shopping center argued that the required payment had not been made on time.
The trial court sided with the shopping center, but the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the tennis club. The court determined that every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, requiring parties to not undermine each other's rights. The shopping center violated this covenant by avoiding the closing of the deal.
Even though the tennis club did not make the required payment on time, the court found that the shopping center had a duty to act in good faith and cooperate. The case was sent back to the lower court to decide the appropriate remedy.
This case is significant because it demonstrates how courts use state law and contract principles to determine the meaning of contracts with implied obligations. It also shows how courts balance justice and fairness with respect for party autonomy, and highlights the importance of good faith and fair dealing in business transactions.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff attempted to exercise an option to purchase or lease a property, but the defendant's attorney claimed that the plaintiff had not properly executed it and refused to honor it. The trial court found that the plaintiff did not comply with the contract terms governing the option and that the attempt to exercise the option was invalid because payment was not tendered until after the deadline. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the defendant did not breach the duty of candor or the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract. The court upheld that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to all parties in a contract, including those with an option provision. Evidence of bad motive or intention is necessary to prove a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The party alleging the breach must show that the other party engaged in conduct that denied the intended benefit of the contract. Subterfuge and evasion in contract performance, even if believed to be justified, violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Equitable relief is not available simply because enforcing the contract causes hardship to one party.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.