
Charles H. Friedrich, III
Partner
201-896-7031 cfriedrich@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Charles H. Friedrich, III
Date: January 30, 2026

Partner
201-896-7031 cfriedrich@sh-law.com
New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. E&N Construction, Inc., a personal guaranty is valid only if the signer clearly and unambiguously shows his or her intention to be personally bound for the obligations of his or her company.
This decision is significant because business owners may sign contracts in their representative capacity without realizing that they contain a personal guaranty provision.
The dispute began after the plaintiff Extech Building Materials, Inc. (Extech) agreed to provide building materials to the defendant E&N Construction, Inc. (E&N). The transaction was memorialized by a two-page document entitled “CREDIT APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT.” Two E&N representatives signed on behalf of E&N, including defendant Joaquim G. Ferreira, E&N’s president.
The paragraph above the signature lines stated that the signers “DO PERSONALLY GUARANTEE UNCONDITIONALLY, AT ALL TIMES, . . . THE PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS… OF THE WITHIN NAME[D] FIRM.” Under each signature line, the pre-printed words “No Title” appeared. Accordingly, neither E&N representative specified whether he signed the Credit Application as an E&N representative or in his individual capacity, or in both capacities.
Extech supplied building materials pursuant to the parties’ agreement, but E&N failed to make the required payment therefor. Extech filed suit against the defendants. The trial judge found that the agreement did not “make it clear that [the signers are] responsible as guarantors for the debt of . . . [E&N]” and, therefore, granted summary judgment in favor of Ferreira. Extech then appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that genuine issues of fact regarding the intentions of the parties precluded summary judgment.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. The Court held unanimously that, while there are multiple ways a corporate representative can unambiguously manifest an intent to personally guarantee an underlying contractual corporate obligation, in this case, the business owner’s single signature did not unambiguously manifest an intent to do so.
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized that a guaranty is fundamentally separate from the underlying contract, even if the two are written on the same paper or instrument or executed contemporaneously. More importantly, the Court held that “an unambiguous manifestation of intent is required because a guaranty is a separate legal obligation that binds an individual who would otherwise be outside the scope of the underlying contract”.
Notably, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected Ferreira’s argument that his single signature could not simultaneously bind both E&N, as principal, and himself, as guarantor, explaining that New Jersey law has not imposed any such bright-line two-signature requirement. The Court also declined to impose such a requirement, holding instead that a valid personal guaranty of a company’s indebtedness requires the signer to unambiguously manifest their intent to be personally bound.
As the Court explained, there are multiple ways by which a corporate representative can unambiguously manifest an intent to personally guarantee the contractual obligations of his or her principal. For example, the representative may:
The New Jersey Supreme Court provided additional guidance, specifically noting that it is “the signer’s intent that is dispositive, not the signature’s technical form; technical form is instructive only insofar as it allows courts to discern the requisite intent.”
For business owners, New Jersey personal guaranty liability can arise when executing contracts becomes routine and it is easy to go through the motions. Unfortunately, failing to read a contract carefully to ensure a full understanding of one’s legal obligations can lead to unforeseen liability.
To protect themselves and their businesses, we encourage business owners to:
Scarinci Hollenbeck advises businesses of all sizes and at every stage of their life cycle. We take pride in building long-term relationships with business owners that help their companies seize new opportunities and avoid unnecessary risks.
To find out how we can help you, we encourage you to contact a member of our Corporate Transactions & Business Group.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga

A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) are becoming an increasingly important component of the electric grid throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As renewable generation expands, electricity demand increases and grid operators seek greater flexibility, battery storage can help balance supply and demand while providing additional capacity and reliability. For developers, battery storage presents […]
Author: Nicholas Wall
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!