Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3452-13T3
04-14-2015
ACCURATE ROOFING AND SIDING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GIL H. ZEILBERGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Gil H. Zeilberger, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Messano and Hayden. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. SC-181-14. Gil H. Zeilberger, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant Gil Zeilberger appeals from the February 28, 2014 judgment of the Special Civil Part - Small Claims Division, ordering him to pay plaintiff Accurate Roofing & Siding $350 on a contract claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Defendant contracted with plaintiff to perform roofing work on his house due to a leak. The written contract, dated December 23, 2013, provided that plaintiff would service the roof for $250. Plaintiff performed the work and was paid. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff returned to discuss various options for "major work" on the roof. Defendant chose the option of having certain extra work done at a cost of $350 and signed a written contract memorializing the agreement. After the work was completed, defendant gave plaintiff a check for $350, but then stopped payment on it.
On January 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint in Small Claims Division seeking payment for services rendered. The trial court held a hearing on February 28, 2014 during which both parties testified. Defendant testified that the original contract required plaintiff to "do all the minor repairs" and that any major repairs would be discussed at a later date. Defendant stated that plaintiff came back after completing the initial repairs to discuss some of the "major work" that had "to be done to fix the roof[.]" Defendant claimed he only agreed to pay $350 based on plaintiff's characterization that it was "major work" and needed to be fixed.
Defendant explained that he was under the impression that the work would take several hours and involve replacing the pipes; however, the work was completed in less than five minutes and involved placing "rubber rings around the . . . pipes on the roof[.]" Defendant testified that while he was unhappy with the amount of work, he gave plaintiff a check for $350. Later, he asked plaintiff to wait before cashing it, so that he could talk with the Office of Consumer Protection. Defendant also offered to pay $100, rather than the contract price, but plaintiff did not agree. Plaintiff testified that he did the agreed-upon work for the stated price and he wanted to be paid.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held that defendant owed $350 because he agreed to that price and plaintiff performed the work required under the contract. The court reasoned that if defendant disagreed with the contract's price, he should have negotiated with plaintiff before the work was done. Further, the court found that the $350 charge was not "unreasonable[.]"
On appeal, defendant argues that the roofing work at issue should have been included under the first contract. Additionally, defendant asserts that the judgment was premature, because there was no breach of the contract and payment was not yet due. Further, defendant argues that the court should have waited to make its decision until after the Office of Consumer Protection had finished investigating his claim against plaintiff. We find these arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief discussion.
It is fundamental that courts "'should . . . enforce contracts as made by the parties.'" Whalen v. Schoor, DePalma & Canger Grp., Inc., 305 N.J. Super. 501, 506 (App. Div. 1997) (quoting Vasquez v. Glassboro Serv. Ass'n, 83 N.J. 86, 101 (1980)). Contracts are to be read "'as a whole in a fair and common sense manner.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 118 (2014) (quoting Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198 N.J. 95, 103 (2009)). Courts are to enforce contracts "'based on the intent of the parties, the express terms of the contract, surrounding circumstances and the underlying purpose of the contract.'" Ibid. (quoting Caruso v. Ravenswood Developers, Inc., 337 N.J. Super. 499, 506 (App. Div. 2001)). Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the "court's function is to enforce the written contract[.]" Webb ex rel. Webb & Harris v. Witt, 379 N.J. Super. 18, 33 (App. Div. 2005) (citations omitted). See also Leonard & Butler, P.C. v. Harris, 279 N.J. Super. 659, 671 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 98 (1995). Thus, the plain language of the contract will govern absent any ambiguity. See Twp. of White v. Castle Ridge Dev. Corp., 419 N.J. Super. 68, 74-75 (App. Div. 2011).
Here, the parties agreed that defendant would pay $350 for plaintiff to perform additional work on the roof. It is undisputed that defendant signed a separate contract for this additional work. Moreover, defendant placed no conditions or other limitations on the contract and does not allege that the work was not performed. Consequently, under the plain language of the contract, defendant is obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount. See Twp. of White, supra, 419 N.J. Super. at 74-75; see also Fairlawn Indus. Ltd. v. Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 342 N.J. Super. 113, 117 (App. Div. 2001) (noting that courts will not rewrite a contract to give the party a better contract than the one agreed to).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION