Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite Sign Contractors, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court
510 A.2d 319, 210 N.J. Super. 646 (1986)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
George Seitz (plaintiff) hired Mark-O-Lite Sign Contractors, Inc. (Mark-O-Lite) (defendant) to restore and replace a neon sign marquee. The project necessitated sheet metal work, which Al Jorgenson, a Mark-O-Lite employee, was scheduled to perform. Jorgenson was the only Mark-O-Lite employee capable of performing the expert sheet metal work the job required. Jorgenson, however, was not named in the contract. Jorgenson had a debilitating diabetes condition and after the contract was signed, required an extended stay in the hospital. At this point, Mark-O-Lite informed Seitz that it could not perform its duty under the contract because of Jorgenson’s unavailability. Mark-O-Lite also contacted other sign companies, but found that they would charge Mark-O-Lite too much to make it economically feasible to contract out the work that Jorgenson would have done. Eventually Seitz hired a different sign company to do the work and was charged $7200 more than the price in the Mark-O-Lite contract. Seitz brought suit to recover that amount.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Milberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
