Citation
Fehr v. Algard, N.J. Super, A.3d (2011)
Fact
The plaintiff acted dishonestly by submitting fish that was not caught on the day of the contest. As such, they violated the covenant of good faith, which is one of the requirements for parties entering into contracts in New Jersey. In this case, all the contestants were required to adhere to the rules put down in the tri-fold brochure. By applying to participate in the contest and signing the contract, the party was assumed to have agreed to the rules and regulations of the tournament. As such, they were required to avoid any practices that may deny other parties the right to benefit from the competition by engaging in unfair dealings (Kalogeras v. 239 Broad Ave.). For this reason, a contestant who acquired the heaviest fluke but failed to adhere to the rules of the contract did not deserve the prize.
The tournament is legitimate and has been going on for years. Fishermen are allowed to participate in the gala provided they pay their application fee and complete the process in a timely manner. The sponsor ensures that the contest is adequately catered for. The judges are also contracted by the sponsor. The role of the three judges in the 2007 contest was simply to ensure that the rules were followed and the rightful winner crowned the year’s ‘Duke of Fluke.’ The judges were also expected to determine the internal and external conditions of the fish. Parties to this contract were required to follow the rules to qualify for the prize and the title to be awarded at the end of the contest (Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.).
The Issue
A contest, just like any other form of contract, involves agreements made between different parties. All the participants are enjoined in the same contract. Failure to follow the rules is regarded as a breach of the arrangement (Watson v. City of E. Orange). In this case, the plaintiff was viewed by the judges as having violated the terms of the contract. In the trial court, the judge presiding over the case granted the plaintiff’s request for a summary ruling and also awarded him damages. The judge did not take the time to analyze the facts surrounding the disqualification of the party from the contest (Fehr v. Algard).
The reason for appealing the decision of the trial court was based on the fact that the judge allowed the plaintiff to provide their own interpretation of the rules governing the competition. Only rule number 12 was put into consideration. The regulation stipulated that the judges had the powers to disqualify any fish whose quality was deemed unacceptable. However, it did not allow for the disqualification of contestants based on the quality of their catch. As a result, the presence of a contract binding the parties involved was overlooked. The situation saw the plaintiff awarded the damages (Fehr v. Algard). The trial court disregarded the fact that the claimant was required to observe the rules to avoid disqualification. Awarding an individual who engaged in deception, in this case, will injure the rights of other contestants (Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.).
Decision
The court of appeal reversed the decision made by the trial court in awarding damages to the plaintiff. The claimant, just like the other contestants, was part of the contract that brought the defendant on board. The role of the defendant was to ensure that the rules of the contest were adhered to. Individuals who failed to comply with the terms of the contract were deemed to have violated the agreement (Watson v. City of E. Orange). In this case, the court determined that the contract had a set of guidelines that contestants had to follow to avoid disqualification (Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.). Subsequently, the issue at hand was addressed in the contract.
It is clear that contestants are not allowed to include fish that was not caught on a material day. After examining the catch presented by the plaintiff, the judges noticed that some of them were in bad condition. The only explanation for this was that the catch was not made on the day of the contest. The situation amounted to a breach of contract (Fehr v. Algard). The defendant has never encountered such a lawsuit against her in the past. The decision of the judges has always been final in the past. The adjudicators protect the rights of all participants by ensuring that all parties observe the laid down rules. In light of this, it is apparent that the jury acted fairly by disqualifying the plaintiff. No damages should be awarded in this case.
Reasons for Making the Decision
After listening to the submissions made by both parties, the appeal judge reversed the decision made by the trial court to grant the plaintiff a partial summary judgment. The reason for this is the fact that there was a contract between the plaintiff, the defendant, and other contestants. The terms of the contract were clearly set out and easily understood by all parties (Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.). The intentions of the defendant (the sponsor) were made clear. The aim was to enhance equity during the tournament.
The rules put in place we’re meant to encourage competitiveness and avoid unfair practice by the contestants. The contract was also designed to ensure that the interests of the participants were catered for (Watson v. City of E. Orange). The defendant was required to award the winner indefinitely, provided that they had the biggest catch and complied with all the rules and regulations of the contest. Following the reversal of the court’s decision, the judge directed the case to be ‘remanded.’ The directive was to remain in place until the fact-finder determined whether or not the terms of the contract had been breached.
In the final ruling, the judge found that the plaintiff had violated the contract. As a result, the judges were right to act within their mandate and disqualify him and his crew from the contest. Prior to registration, participants were given a tri-fold booklet with a list of laws and regulations that were to be observed in the competition (Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp.). The contestants fully understood what was expected of them. They went ahead and signed the registration papers. The move was a sign that they had accepted the rules and regulations laid down by the organizers. In effect, a contract was established between the contestants and the sponsors of the tournament. All parties were expected to act in good faith (Kalogeras v. 239 Broad Ave.).
The participants were required to conduct themselves without malice in line with the constitution of New Jersey (Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.). They were to avoid infringing on the rights of other participants (Watson v. City of E. Orange). In light of this, it is clear that the intentional failure to adhere to the regulations of the contest on the part of the plaintiff was in bad faith. The judges had to ensure that fairness prevailed. As such, the decision to disqualify the offending party was justified.
Works Cited
Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. 195 N.J. 231, 238, 948 A.2d 1285. 2008. Print.
Fehr v. Algard. WL 13670. 2011. Print.
Kalogeras v. 239 Broad Ave. L.L.C., 202 N.J. 349, 366, 997 A.2d 943. 2010. Print.
Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. 196 N.J. 251, 270, 952 A.2d 1077. 2008. Print.
Watson v. City of E. Orange. 175 N.J. 442, 447, 815 A.2d 956. 2003. Print.
Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp. 168 N.J. 236, 244, 773 A.2d 1121. 2001. Print.