Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Affirmative Defense in New Jersey Breach of Contract Lawsuit
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: July 4, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
In many breach of contract cases, the breaching party can reduce or eliminate its liability by arguing that the circumstances surrounding the agreement justified the breach. These are referred to as an “affirmative defense” and must generally be raised in the defendant’s answer and proven at trial.
In a recent case, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court clarified that defendants must plead frustration of purpose as an affirmative defense in order to avoid liability when a supervening event makes a defendant’s obligations impractical or impossible to perform.
The Facts of the Case
JB Pool Management v. Four Seasons at Smithville Homeowners Association Inc. involved a contract for pool-related services between a pool management company and a homeowner’s association. During the term of the contract, the condominium’s indoor pool was closed for several months due to mold, and the parties disagreed over whether fees were due under the agreement during this time.
While J.B. Pool Management raised a number of defenses to the resulting breach of contract lawsuit, it did not assert frustration of purpose. Rather, the trial judge raised it during the process of instructing the jury as a more suitable alternative to a proposed charge of impossibility of performance. The jury ultimately found the association was not liable for the four months of disputed fees.
On appeal, J.B. Pool Management raised a number of grounds for reversal, including that the trial court improperly and prejudicially charged the jury on the doctrine of frustration of purpose, despite the fact that Four Seasons had not raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense in its pleadings.
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division concluded that litigants seeking to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose to avoid their contractual duties generally should plead the doctrine as an affirmative defense. However, the panel acknowledged that because New Jersey law was previously unclear on the issue, it would be unfair to impose the requirement on J.B. Pool Management retroactively.
“Instead, we hold that, in future cases, the defense of frustration of purpose, or impossibility of performance, be raised in a responsive pleading, unless exceptional circumstances excuse that oversight,” the court held.
The court further found that J.B. Pool Management was prejudiced by the late notice of the frustration of purpose affirmative defense and reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. It remanded the case for additional discovery focused on that defense, followed by a new trial.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Affirmative Defense in New Jersey Breach of Contract Lawsuit
Author: Robert E. Levy
In many breach of contract cases, the breaching party can reduce or eliminate its liability by arguing that the circumstances surrounding the agreement justified the breach. These are referred to as an “affirmative defense” and must generally be raised in the defendant’s answer and proven at trial.
In a recent case, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court clarified that defendants must plead frustration of purpose as an affirmative defense in order to avoid liability when a supervening event makes a defendant’s obligations impractical or impossible to perform.
The Facts of the Case
JB Pool Management v. Four Seasons at Smithville Homeowners Association Inc. involved a contract for pool-related services between a pool management company and a homeowner’s association. During the term of the contract, the condominium’s indoor pool was closed for several months due to mold, and the parties disagreed over whether fees were due under the agreement during this time.
While J.B. Pool Management raised a number of defenses to the resulting breach of contract lawsuit, it did not assert frustration of purpose. Rather, the trial judge raised it during the process of instructing the jury as a more suitable alternative to a proposed charge of impossibility of performance. The jury ultimately found the association was not liable for the four months of disputed fees.
On appeal, J.B. Pool Management raised a number of grounds for reversal, including that the trial court improperly and prejudicially charged the jury on the doctrine of frustration of purpose, despite the fact that Four Seasons had not raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense in its pleadings.
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division concluded that litigants seeking to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose to avoid their contractual duties generally should plead the doctrine as an affirmative defense. However, the panel acknowledged that because New Jersey law was previously unclear on the issue, it would be unfair to impose the requirement on J.B. Pool Management retroactively.
“Instead, we hold that, in future cases, the defense of frustration of purpose, or impossibility of performance, be raised in a responsive pleading, unless exceptional circumstances excuse that oversight,” the court held.
The court further found that J.B. Pool Management was prejudiced by the late notice of the frustration of purpose affirmative defense and reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. It remanded the case for additional discovery focused on that defense, followed by a new trial.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.