MICHAEL CONLEY, JR. AND KATIE M. MAURER VS. MONA
GUERRERO, BRIAN KRAMINITZ, AND MICHELE TANZI
A-3796-13T2
We affirm the trial court's determination that a residential seller effectively terminated her sale agreement with plaintiffs during the agreement's three-day attorney review period, mandated by New Jersey State Bar Association v. New Jersey Association of Realtor Boards, 93 N.J. 470 (1983), mod., 94 N.J. 449 (1983). The agreement requires notice of disapproval by certified mail, telegram or personal delivery to the realtors; no delivery method is prescribed for notice to parties. The seller's attorney sent the disapproval letter by facsimile and email to the buyer's attorney and by email to the realtor, a dual agent. It was undisputed that the realtor, the buyer's attorney, and the buyers received actual notice of the disapproval. The realtor did not complain about the method of delivery. We conclude that, even assuming the buyers could enforce the realtor's right to notice by the prescribed delivery methods, substantial compliance sufficed, since the buyer did not dispute actual notice and enforcement of the method-of- delivery requirement would result in a disproportionate forfeiture of the seller's right to disapprove the contract.
We affirm the trial court's determination that a residential seller effectively terminated her sale agreement with plaintiffs during the agreement's three-day attorney review period, mandated by New Jersey State Bar Association v. New Jersey Association of Realtor Boards, 93 N.J. 470 (1983), mod., 94 N.J. 449 (1983). The agreement requires notice of disapproval by certified mail, telegram or personal delivery to the realtors; no delivery method is prescribed for notice to parties. The seller's attorney sent the disapproval letter by facsimile and email to the buyer's attorney and by email to the realtor, a dual agent. It was undisputed that the realtor, the buyer's attorney, and the buyers received actual notice of the disapproval. The realtor did not complain about the method of delivery. We conclude that, even assuming the buyers could enforce the realtor's right to notice by the prescribed delivery methods, substantial compliance sufficed, since the buyer did not dispute actual notice and enforcement of the method-of- delivery requirement would result in a disproportionate forfeiture of the seller's right to disapprove the contract.
