ROBERT J. TRIFFIN VS. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HERNANDO COUNTY(DC-7774-15, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1956-15T2
N.J. Super. App. Div. UJun 7, 2017Background
- D&P Construction (plaintiff), a snow-removal contractor, performed services at Phillipsburg Mall (defendant) property after being engaged through Alkyha Defense & Logistics (Alkyha), the mall’s maintenance contractor.
- Plaintiff entered a written contract with Alkyha to perform snow removal and to bill Alkyha; the contract barred plaintiff from seeking payment from the mall or contacting the mall about billing disputes.
- Plaintiff performed services on 16 occasions and invoiced Alkyha for $149,502.50; Alkyha did not pay or dispute the invoices and plaintiff subsequently sent the invoices to the mall demanding payment.
- Plaintiff sued the mall only, alleging breach of contract (based on agency/apparent authority) and unjust enrichment; the mall moved for summary judgment on both claims.
- The trial judge granted summary judgment on the breach claim, finding no contract between plaintiff and the mall and no probative evidence of an agency/apparent authority relationship; reconsideration was denied.
- The trial judge also granted summary judgment on unjust enrichment, concluding plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy against Alkyha and plaintiff did not expect remuneration from the mall when performing the services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mall is liable on a breach of contract theory via agency/apparent authority | Alkyha acted with apparent authority for the mall; verified complaint alleges facts supporting agency | No privity of contract; where contractor/subcontractor relationship exists and is defined, owner not bound; no probative evidence of agency | No. Summary judgment for mall; no contract with mall and no evidence of agency/apparent authority |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim lies against the mall | Mall received the benefit of services and should pay; recovery in quasi-contract avoids unjust enrichment | Plaintiff had an express contract with Alkyha and an adequate legal remedy; plaintiff did not expect payment from mall | No. Summary judgment for mall; unjust enrichment unavailable because plaintiff expected payment from Alkyha and had contractual remedy against Alkyha |
| Whether facts in plaintiff’s verified complaint could be treated as competent proof | Verified allegations (by plaintiff’s officer) establish agency facts | Verified complaint was insufficient because verifier had no personal knowledge of the meetings/transactions | Court rejected relying on the verified complaint for facts where verifier lacked personal knowledge |
| Whether plaintiff’s later deposition testimony changed the analysis | (Implicit) Deposition might support agency or expectation | Deposition confirmed plaintiff’s contract was with Alkyha and plaintiff mostly dealt with Alkyha | Deposition supported mall’s position and reinforced summary judgment outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (2016) (summary judgment standard and appellate review of legal determinations)
- Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (2014) (summary judgment standard cited)
- Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189 (2016) (procedural summary judgment principles)
- Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88 (2007) (elements of unjust enrichment and expectation of remuneration)
- VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539 (1994) (quasi-contract doctrine requires expectation of payment)
- Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 105 (App. Div. 1966) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract principles)