On May 24,2010, plaintiffs Marc and Bree Koehl entered into a sales contract with defendant Bergen Auto Enterprise L.L.C

d/b/a Wayne Mazda Inc.(Wayne Mazda) of a used 2009 Mazda. The plaintiffs agreed to pay $26,430.22 for the Mazda and were credited $7,000 for their Nissa Altima 2005 as a trade-in. As plaintiffs still owed $8,118.28 on the Nissan Wayne Mazda assessed plaintiffs a net pay-off of this amount and agreed to remit the balance due to satisfy the outstanding lien.

The plaintiffs took possession of the Mazda with temporary plates and left Nissan with the defendant. A few days later, a representative of the defendant advised the plaintiffs that the Nissa vehicle identification tag(VIN tag) was missing. The representative claimed it could not sell the car and offered to rescind the transaction. Plaintiffs refused. When temporary plates on The Mazda expired on June 24, 2010, the defendant refused to provide the plaintiffs with the permanent plates. They refused to pay off the plaintiffs' outstanding loan on the Nissan as they agreed. As a result, plaintiffs were required to coniute to make monthly payments on both the Nissan and Mazda.

On July 28 20101, plaintiffs filed a complaint in (New Jersey state court)against Wayne Mazda. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract.

On February 2 2012 the court rendered an oral decision finding that there was a breach of contract by Wayne Mazda.On February 17 2012 THE CURT entered $5,405.17 in favor of plaintiffs against Wayne Mazda .9THE DEFEBNDANT APPLELLED TI A ATSATE INTERMEDIATE APELLEADE COURT)

defendant argues that Plaintiff's delivery on the Nissan without Vin tag was a breach of the contract of sales and precludes a finding that the defendant breached the contract. However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs were not aware that they Nissan lacked a VIN tag when they offered it in trade. Moreover, the defendant's representative examined the car twice before accepting it in trade and did not notice the missing VIN until they took the car to an auction where they tried to sell it. There is a material distinction between the plaintiff's conduct which the court found unintentionally, and the defendant's refusal to release the permanent plates for which the plaintiffs had paid, an action the court concluded was done to maintain the :"leverage".

The evidence indicates that the problem with the missing Vin could be rectified.

Marc Kohel applied and paid for a replacement Vin tag ad Meadowlansd($35.51)While initially mad some calls to Meadowlands, he didn't follow up in obtaining the Vin tag after personnel at Wayne Mazda began refusing to take his calls.

The court concluded that Wayne Mazda didn't handle this as adroitly as they could. Kevin DiPiano, identified in the complaint as the owner/ceo of Wayne Mazda, would not take (the plaintiffs)calls as they discussed matters.

The court found

Mr DiPiano could have been a better businessman and a little more compassionate or at least responsive, you know?

He was not He acted like he didn't care . That went a long way to infuriate the plaintiffs.I don't blame you to be infuriated.

Here plaintiffs attempted to remedy the Vin tag issue, but this resolution was frustrated by the defendant's unreasonable conduct. We thus reject the defendant's arguments to the plaintiff's failure to obtain the replacement Vin tag amounted to the reputation of the contract.

Affirmed.

1. What is a material breach of contract? When a material breach occurs, what are the non-breaching party options?

2. What is a minor breach of contract? When a minor breach occurs, is the non-breaching party excused from the performance?

3. In this case, what were the defendant's central arguments that the plaintiffs should not have been granted relief for Wayne Mazda's breach?

4.Was there a difference in the degree to which the plaintiffs and the defendants failed to perform the contract? Explain.

Which party was in material breach?