OPINION ON YOUR CASE
From your instructions, you have instructed me to prepare a defense. However, I would like to state that you are not required to prepare a defense in your circumstance. You are the Plaintiff in this case. Therefore, it is the defendant who should prepare a defense. Besides, your case is at the discovery stage. If you, as the Plaintiff, are not satisfied with the defendant’s response to your discovery request, you have an obligation to file a motion in court to compel the defendant to produce the requested information. In that vein, I have provided my opinion in the other attached document. Having said that, I shall proceed to give an analysis of your case from the documents you sent. Perhaps this analysis might help you later on as you proceed with your case after the discovery phase is completed. I shall discuss every claim on your complaint, attempting to bring out the elements of every claim and how the defendant breached your rights under the claims.
Fraud
To state a claim for common law fraud, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if proven, would establish the following five elements: “(1) a material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting damages”. In your case, the defendant’s conduct fully satisfied all of the elements above. Notably, the defendant made false representations in his contact with you. For instance, he represented that he was the sole owner of the filling station- which he was not. When he was making the representations, the defendant was aware that he was doing a misrepresentation because he kept critical information about the Motor Fuel Supply Agreement from you. Accordingly, you relied on the representations and entered into the invalid agreement with him, sending him the payments. The defendant is liable for fraud.
Equitable Fraud
To rescind a contract on the grounds of equitable fraud, a party must demonstrate: (1) a material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) the maker’s intent that the other party rely on the misrepresentation; and (3) detrimental reliance by the other party. You should note that the equitable doctrine includes instances of fraudulent misrepresentations that do not exist in the law. It broadens the scope for fraudulent misrepresentation. A party claiming equitable fraud must prove the required elements by clear and convincing evidence. In your case, the same analysis of facts for the claim of common law fraud applies here. I also find that your facts are convincing enough to find the defendant liable for equitable fraud.
Breach of Contract
Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following elements for a valid breach of contract claim: (1) a contract between the parties; (2) a breach of that contract; (3) damages flowing therefrom; and (4) that the party stating the claim performed its contractual obligations”. Further, an enforceable contract requires an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds upon all the essential terms of the agreement. The terms of the contract “must be sufficiently definite that performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty”. Also, under New Jersey law, a seller has the duty to deliver goods that conform precisely to the contract. In your case, the defendant and you entered a contract for the sale of the filling station. The defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract by failing to transfer ownership of the filling station to you. You performed your part of the bargain by duly paying the required amount to the defendant. Unfortunately, the defendant caused you to lose your money. Under the law, the defendant had a duty to provide you complete ownership of the filling station. He failed to do his required part, and as a result, he is liable for breach of contract.
Unjust Enrichment
The doctrine of unjust enrichment rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. To establish unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show both that defendant received a benefit, and that retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust. In your case, the defendant enriched himself unjustly by accepting payments from you, yet he knew very well that he did not deserve to receive the said payments. Notably, he represented himself as the owner of the filling station, so that he could benefit unjustly from your payments. Accordingly, the defendant is fully liable for unjust enrichment.
In conclusion, the defendant is fully liable for all of the claims in your complaint. Besides, you have overwhelming evidence against him. Accordingly, I find that your case has a high chance of success.
REFERENCE
Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 105, 108 (App. Div. 1966).
Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 203 (3d Cir. 2007).
Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 610 (1997).
Ibid, at 435.
Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 624-25 (1981).
Liebling v. Garden State Indem., 337 N.J. Super. 447, 453 (App. Div. 2001).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:17-5(a).
N.J.S.A. 12A:1-101 et seq.
V.R.G. Corp. v. G.K.N. Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994).
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435 (1992).
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.