From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moreira Const. Co., Inc. v. Moretrench Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 1, 1968
241 A.2d 236 (N.J. 1968)

Summary

refusing to apply rule of Santor to suit between corporations even though plaintiff was a small company and defendant was the world's largest well point company

Summary of this case from Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

Opinion

Argued March 19, 1968 —

Decided April 1, 1968.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 97 N.J. Super. 391, 235 A.2d 211.

Mr. George J. Kenny argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Pindar, McElroy, Connell Foley, attorneys).

Mr. Clifford W. Starrett argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Schenck, Price, Smith King, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Moreira Const. Co., Inc. v. Moretrench Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 1, 1968
241 A.2d 236 (N.J. 1968)

refusing to apply rule of Santor to suit between corporations even though plaintiff was a small company and defendant was the world's largest well point company

Summary of this case from Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
Case details for

Moreira Const. Co., Inc. v. Moretrench Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MOREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MORETRENCH…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Apr 1, 1968

Citations

241 A.2d 236 (N.J. 1968)
241 A.2d 236

Citing Cases

Monsanto v. Alden Leeds

Case law in both Missouri and New Jersey generally permits the allocation of risks. See Rock Springs Realty,…

Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC

"[I]in the absence of fraud, one who does not choose to read a contract before signing it cannot later…