Poole v. Peter Bros. of New Jersey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the economic loss doctrine was inapplicable and did not operate as a bar to the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claims
• holding that the contract was collateral to the false advertisements, statements, and assurances made by appellees prior to signing the contract
• holding that for installment contracts all agreements must be in a single document
• noting that applying the economic loss doctrine to UTPCPL claims would render the catchall provision virtually meaningless
• determining that gist of action for UTPCPL claim was in tort and not breach of contract
• determining that the RISC at issue did subsume the other purchase documents because it contained an integration clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).