New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FORM ASSERTING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE THIS LATE IN THE LITIGATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY 1) FILED A COUNTERCLAIM IN BREACH OF THEIR OWN AGREEMENT; 2) MOVED TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED ON THAT COUNTERCLAIM AGAIN BREACHING THEIR OWN AGREEMENT TO HAVE ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

The defendant should be prohibited for enforcing the arbitration agreement because of (1) the extent of the time which they took to enforce the arbitration agreement, and (2) the making of a counterclaim clearly breached the agreement between the parties. The defendants breached the agreement by making a counterclaim rather than demanding arbitration and as such cannot enforce the agreement. Not only have they made a counterclaim but they have moved to enter a judgment on those pleadings.

It is black letter contract law that a material breach by either party to a bilateral contract excuses the other party from rendering any further contractual performance. Magnet Res., Inc. v. Summit MRI, Inc., 318 N.J. Super. 275, 285, 723 A.2d 976, 981 (App.Div. 1998). The court should hold that the defendants have waived their right to assert the matter should be arbitrated. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of waiver in Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 376 (2008) and held the following:

Applying fundamental contract principles to the present case, we are in accord with the Appellate Division's conclusion that “the circumstances at hand abundantly militate in favor of the finding of a mutual waiver of the contractual right to arbitrate.” Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 376, (2008).

Although the facts in Wein are very different from the facts in this case, the basic concepts are the same. A party cannot use the system and then after having received the full benefit claim they no longer desire such benefits and FORCE the benefits away from the opposing party. The course of the litigation has run and discovery has been completed and NOW they want to enforce an arbitration agreement despite 1) making a counterclaim and asking the court to enter judgment on that counterclaim. Where is the fairness? What about the additional delay to the plaintiffs and what about all the counsel fees in this case? The matter is one of fee shifting and now the defendant wants to do it ALL OVER AGAIN in arbitration? What is the point?

Originally, I filed a law suit against the new Chrysler Corporation with regard to a vehicle which was purchased by a current client of mine. The client experienced numerous issues with this vehicle including transmission, brakes and electrical problems. My client is alleging that there were numerous repairs on the breaks during the first 34,000 miles. Specifically, my client had to get authorization and claim number from Chrysler before any repairs would be done. We have been doing research on the internet and are attempting to discern the nature and extent of numerous prior problems by any 2008 Town & Country owners.

If you are a Town & Country owner, 2008, and have any complaints, communications with the manufacturer, communications with the selling dealer or other e-mail communications, please contact this law firm so that we might discuss obtaining this information from you.

Under New Jersey law, for a Lemon Law claim, the plaintiff is obligated to prove under certain circumstances that the use, value and safety of a vehicle have been substantially impaired. The claims in this case revolve around defective brakes, defective transmission and a defective electrical system, and the plaintiff is alleging that the use, value and safety have been substantially impaired.

Again, we would greatly appreciate anyone with experience and/or information on a 2008 Town & Country and their communications with the manufacturer, contact us to provide same, and your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

Read this: Service Bulletin from the manufacturer.