# Sofman v. Denham Food Service, Inc.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1962 · 37 N.J. 304

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701063

## Case

- **Full name:** Howard Sofman, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Denham Food Service, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Manhattan Provision Co., Inc., Defendant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 7, 1962
- **Citations:** 37 N.J. 304; 181 A.2d 168; 1 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 93; 1962 N.J. LEXIS 221
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hall
- **Judges:** Sohettiwo, Hall
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701063

## Opinion text

Hall, J.
(dissenting). While I thoroughly agree that the law in this state derived from Nisky v. Childs Co., 103 N. J. L. 464 (E. & A. 1927) is unsound and deserving of correction (and I feel the philosophy of the decision would have been applied by that court to prepared food, ready to eat, served in a cafeteria or for off-premises consumption as well as to that furnished in the usual manner in a conventional restaurant), the legislature has specifically changed it since the commencement of this suit. N. J. S. A. 12A:2-314(1), Uniform Commercial Code, approved Novem *315 ber 30, 1961. This change, like all other provisions of the far-ranging code, is effective January 1, 1963. It may well be said that the future effective date amounts to an all-inclusive legislative determination that the additional period of time should ensue so that there will be no possibility of prejudice or injury to persons affected by reason of the prior existence of contrary law. In any event, when a branch of government which has coordinate power with the judiciary to change the law does so before the courts act, it seems to me only fitting and orderly, if not imperative, that the judicial arm defer to and be controlled as to time of change by the legislative action. I would therefore reverse and direct the entry of judgment for defendant.
Justice Haneman joins in this opinion.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor and Schettino—5.
For reversal—Justices Hall and Haneman—2.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701063. Public record. Not legal advice.