M & M Wholsesale Distributors v. Sam's Wholesale, LLC
A-3025-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 13, 2025Background
- M & M Wholesale Distributors (M&M), a distributor of tobacco products, sued Sam's Wholesale, LLC (Sam's) for $26,222.44, alleging Sam's failed to pay for products ordered and received in November 2019.
- The parties had a longstanding business relationship where Sam's would order products, often using post-dated checks for payment and not always signing invoices for pickups.
- The central factual dispute was whether Sam’s picked up—and failed to pay for—a large order on November 18, 2019, as contended by M&M, and whether a $6,000 check given for a prior order was ever honored.
- At a bench trial, M&M’s witness, Papaiya, produced invoices and testified to the industry’s practices, confirming product delivery and failed payment; Sam’s principal, Abdel-Wahab, denied the disputed order and maintained all checks had cleared.
- The trial court found in favor of M&M, finding Papaiya credible, the records meticulous, and Sam’s evidence unconvincing, entering judgment for $26,147.44 (excluding insufficient evidence for some bank fees), and denied Sam’s motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of contract and delivery | Contract formed and goods delivered; payment not made | No delivery/pickup of Nov 2019 order | Contract existed and goods delivered |
| Responsibility for $6,000 check | Check was never honored and remains unpaid | Check was ultimately honored | Check was never honored |
| Sufficiency of M&M’s business records | Meticulous records prove account status | Records are incomplete, not all invoices signed | Records are credible; signatures not always required |
| Reconsideration of judgment | No new overlooked evidence | Trial court misunderstood testimony | No basis for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (factual findings of trial court are binding on appeal if supported by credible evidence)
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150 (standard for appellate review of bench trial findings)
- In re Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J. 487 (when factual findings offend justice, appellate intervention is warranted)
- Balducci v. Cige, 456 N.J. Super. 219 (scope of appellate review for non-jury trials)