While a loan guaranty agreement between a commercial mortgage lender and the managers of a condominium renovation project might have been a contract of adhesion, the Superior Court said the challengers of the agreement presented boilerplate arguments that failed to show a disparity in negotiating powers.
Judge Kate Ford Elliott, writing for Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy and Senior Judge James J. Fitzgerald III in an unpublished decision in Inland Mortgage Capital v. 38 North Front Street Associates onJune 24, said Esat Aslansan and Aysel Aslansan also failed to show that the contract terms unreasonably favored the mortgage lender that drafted the loan guaranty agreement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
