Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. Electro-Protective Corp.
Cases that cite this one
49 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- NCP Litigation Trust v. KPMG LLP (N.J. 2006)
- Lobianco v. Property Protection, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
- Synnex Corp. v. ADT SECURITY SERV. INC. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)
- In re the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation (District Court, D. New Jersey 1999)
- Daibo v. Kirsch (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)
- Nohe v. Roblyn Development Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- United Jersey Bank v. Kensey (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- McBride v. Minstar, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994)
- Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletown (N.J. 1994)
- Rolnick v. Rolnick (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)
- Chrisomalis v. Chrisomalis (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
- Notch View Associates v. Smith (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Tri-Plex Security Alarm Systems (Superior Court of Delaware 1992)
- Barry v. NJ STATE HWY. AUTHORITY (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990)
- Schrier v. Beltway Alarm Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987)
- Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello (N.J. 1984)
- Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977)
- Strong v. Retail Credit Company (Colo. App. 1976)
- Coleco Industries, Inc. v. Berman (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
- PENN, LLC v. FREESTYLE SOFTWARE, INC. (District Court, D. New Jersey 2023)
- Punish and Indu Malhotra v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 2021)
- BAK Advisors, LLC as the Liquidating Trustee of Ho v. Sax LLP (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 2021)
- Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v. Epstein (N.J. 1989)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
On this appeal, plaintiff has expressly disclaimed any contention that the limitations of liability clause in question is arbitrary and unconscionable and should be declared unenforceable as against public policy. Rather, the argument is made that the clause .(1) is invalid since it is unrelated to actual damages and therefore is in the nature of a penalty provision; and, (2) in any event, was intended to apply only to a situation where defendant breached its annual service undertaking (as distinguished from design and installation of the system) and plaintiff found it necessary to obtain the service elsewhere at a higher cost.
Also, in addition to defendant’s allegedly admitted liability for breach of contract, plaintiff asserts a claim based on defendant’s “innocent misrepresentation of material fact,” on which plaintiff asserts it relied, with resultant damage proximately related to such misrepresentation.
We have considered all of plaintiff’s contentions. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed for substantially the reasons expressed in its per curiam opinion reported at 126 N. J. Super. 254 (1973).
Affirmed.
*198 For affirmance—Justices Jacobs, Hall, Sullivan, Pashman and Clifford, and Judge Collester—6.
For reversal—Hone.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.