Case 13.3
Kohel v. Bergen Auto Enterprises, LLC
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, 2013.
2013 WL 439970.
Issue: This case involved allegations of breach of contract involving which parties and for what actions?
The Plaintiffs Marc and Bree Kohel entered into a sales contract with the Defendant Bergen Auto Enterprise, LLC for the purchase of a used 2009 Mazda. The Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract was when the Defendant refused to supply permanent plates for the 2009 Mazda that the Plaintiffs already paid for. Also, for the Defendant refusing to pay off plaintiff’s outstanding loan on the Nissan, as they had agreed in the contract. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs delivery of the Nissan without a VIN tag was a breach of the contract of sale and excludes the finding that Defendant breach the contract.
Rule of Law: What is the difference between a material breach and a minor breach of contract?
The difference between a material breach, and a minor breach of contract. A minor breach, the non-breaching party’s duty to perform can sometimes be suspended until the breach has been remedied, and once fixed the non-breaching party must resume performance of the contractual obligations. A material breach the non-breaching party is excused from the performance of the contractual duties, and can also sue the …show more content…
Here is why, the Defendant had his own representatives examined the Nissan twice and missed the VIN tag both times before accepting the Nissan in the trade, even so the Plaintiff tried to remedy the VIN tag issue by replacing it, thus fixing the problem. However, the Defendant still refused to provide the permanent plates that the Plaintiff paid for, and refused to pay off Plaintiff’s outstanding loan on the Nissan, as they had agreed. In addition, the Defendant continued to refuse to take the Plaintiffs calls, thus breaching the contract by refusing to do what was agreed on in the
Kohel v. Bergen Auto Enterprises, LLC
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, 2013.
2013 WL 439970.
Issue: This case involved allegations of breach of contract involving which parties and for what actions?
The Plaintiffs Marc and Bree Kohel entered into a sales contract with the Defendant Bergen Auto Enterprise, LLC for the purchase of a used 2009 Mazda. The Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract was when the Defendant refused to supply permanent plates for the 2009 Mazda that the Plaintiffs already paid for. Also, for the Defendant refusing to pay off plaintiff’s outstanding loan on the Nissan, as they had agreed in the contract. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs delivery of the Nissan without a VIN tag was a breach of the contract of sale and excludes the finding that Defendant breach the contract.
Rule of Law: What is the difference between a material breach and a minor breach of contract?
The difference between a material breach, and a minor breach of contract. A minor breach, the non-breaching party’s duty to perform can sometimes be suspended until the breach has been remedied, and once fixed the non-breaching party must resume performance of the contractual obligations. A material breach the non-breaching party is excused from the performance of the contractual duties, and can also sue the …show more content…
Here is why, the Defendant had his own representatives examined the Nissan twice and missed the VIN tag both times before accepting the Nissan in the trade, even so the Plaintiff tried to remedy the VIN tag issue by replacing it, thus fixing the problem. However, the Defendant still refused to provide the permanent plates that the Plaintiff paid for, and refused to pay off Plaintiff’s outstanding loan on the Nissan, as they had agreed. In addition, the Defendant continued to refuse to take the Plaintiffs calls, thus breaching the contract by refusing to do what was agreed on in the