Gupta v. Asha Enterprises, LLC
27 A.3d 953, 422 N.J. Super. 136 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller who makes an express warranty about a food product's characteristics, such as being vegetarian, may be liable for foreseeable consequential damages, including emotional and spiritual distress, resulting from a breach. However, such a breach does not support claims under the Products Liability Act if the food is not defective, under the Consumer Fraud Act if there is no ascertainable loss of money or property, or for negligent infliction of emotional distress if the facts do not fit within established narrow categories.
Facts:
- Durgesh Gupta and Sharad Agarwal, on behalf of a group of sixteen strict Hindu vegetarians, placed an order for vegetarian samosas at Moghul Express, an Indian restaurant.
- Gupta and Agarwal explicitly informed a Moghul Express employee that they required vegetarian samosas for a group of strict vegetarians.
- The employee assured them the restaurant did not make meat-filled samosas.
- Upon pickup, the food tray was labeled "VEG samosas," and the men were again assured of the food's vegetarian nature.
- After some plaintiffs consumed the samosas, they became concerned about the contents and called the restaurant, which once more assured them the samosas were vegetarian.
- Still concerned, they returned the remaining food to Moghul Express, where an employee confirmed the samosas contained meat due to an order mix-up.
- As devout Hindus, the plaintiffs believe that unknowingly consuming meat caused them significant spiritual injury, which requires a religious purification ceremony in Haridwar, India.
Procedural Posture:
- Sixteen plaintiffs sued Asha Enterprises, L.L.C. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (trial court), alleging five causes of action.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before discovery commenced.
- The trial court judge converted the motion into one for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with Asha Enterprises as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restaurant's sale of meat-filled samosas, after expressly warranting they were vegetarian to customers with known religious dietary restrictions, constitute a breach of express warranty for which foreseeable consequential damages like emotional and spiritual distress may be recovered?
Opinions:
Majority - Payne, J.A.D.
Yes, a restaurant's sale of meat-filled samosas after expressly warranting they were vegetarian can constitute a breach of express warranty for which foreseeable consequential damages may be recovered. The court found that Moghul Express made an express warranty under N.J.S.A. 12A:2-313 through its employee's oral affirmations and the label on the food container. While claims for products liability, consumer fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress were properly dismissed, the claim for breach of express warranty survives. The Products Liability Act did not apply because the samosas were not defective, merely the wrong product. The Consumer Fraud Act claim failed because the plaintiffs did not suffer an "ascertainable loss of moneys or property," as spiritual harm and the cost to cure it do not qualify. The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim failed because New Jersey law narrowly restricts such claims to 'zone of danger' or 'bystander' liability cases, neither of which applied here. However, under the Uniform Commercial Code, plaintiffs may recover consequential damages for breach of an express warranty, which can include emotional or spiritual injury if such harm was a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach at the time of the contract. The case was remanded for discovery to determine the foreseeability of these damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct legal remedies available when a seller provides a non-conforming, rather than a defective, product. It reinforces that New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act requires a tangible monetary or property loss, excluding non-economic harms like spiritual distress. Most significantly, the case establishes that faith-based or spiritual injuries may be compensable as consequential damages under a breach of express warranty claim, provided the seller had reason to foresee such harm. This precedent expands potential liability for businesses catering to customers with specific religious or health-related dietary requirements, emphasizing the legal weight of their express assurances.
Unlock the full brief for Gupta v. Asha Enterprises, LLC