Howard M. Schoor Associates, Inc. v. Holmdel Heights Construction Co.
New Jersey Supreme Court
343 A.2d 401 (1975)
Sugarman (defendant), Holmdel's attorney with a substantial personal financial interest in the development company, personally wrote checks from his own funds and orally promised to guarantee Holmdel's (defendant) debts if Schoor Associates and another firm (plaintiffs) continued engineering and surveying work critical to the development's success; the plaintiffs completed the work relying on that promise but were never paid, and sued to recover the outstanding amount. The trial court found Sugarman had a substantial financial interest in Holmdel and had orally guaranteed its debts, awarding the plaintiffs judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed on statute-of-frauds grounds.
Whether a promise to answer for another's debt falls within the statute of frauds when the promisor makes that promise mainly for his own pecuniary or business advantage.