NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UN I TE D ST AT ES C OU RT O F APP EA L S FOR THE THI RD CI RCUI T

____________ No. 09-2885

____________ WEST MO NT DE VE L OPM EN T G RO UP, Ap pe lla nt v. TOWNSHI P OF HAD DON, MAY OR RANDAL LW. TEAGUE COMMI SSI ONER J OHN C. F OL EY, COMMI SSI ONER PAUL DOUGH ERTY AND CAMDENCOUNTY I MPROVEMENT AUTHO RI TY,

__________________________________ On Ap pe a l f ro m U nit e d St a te s D istri c t Co ur t f o r th e D i s tr i c to f

N e wJ e r s e y (D.C. No. 07-c v-05846) District J udg e: Honora

ble J oseph E. Irena s

__________________________________ Submit ted Under

Third Circuit L AR 34.1(a) Fe bruar y 5, 2010 Be fore : McKEE, HA RDI MAN, Circuit Judges , and DAV I S,* District Judge (F iled: April 13 , 2010)

________________________ * The Honor able L eg rome D. D avis, District J udg e for the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by desig nation.2 _____________________ OPI NI ON OF THE COURT

_____________________ DAVI S, District Judge Plaintiff Westm ont Development Gr oup, L L C appea ls the order of the District Court
e n te r in g s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t i nf

av o r o f D e f e n d an ts T o w n s h ip o f

H a d d o n , M ay o r

Ra n d a ll W. Tea g ue, Commissi oner John C. Foley , and Commissi oner Paul Dougherty pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil P roce dure 56. The District Court’s order also enter ed judg ment on Plaintiff’s pleading s in favor of

Def endant Camde n County

I mprovement Authority

pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil P roce dure 12( c). We will aff irm the District Court’s dec ision in full. I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Th is l iti g a tio n a

ri se s f ro m a fa ile d c on tr a c t. We stm on t D e ve lop me nt G ro up , L L C (“WDG” ), a Pennsylvania limited liabilit y company whose princ ipal is J oanna Pang , and the Township of Ha ddon, a municipality in Camden County , New Jersey , enter ed into a Redeve lopment Ag ree ment on May 26, 2004 (“A g ree ment”), f or the de velopment of a

live enter tainment venue a

nd other c ommercia l uses at the Westmont Theater , located at 49 Haddon Avenue in Haddon, Ne w J erse y . WDG did not comply with the Ag ree ment and on De cembe r 13, 2007, the Township terminate d the Ag ree ment. Th e To wn sh ip o f H a dd on is g ov e rn e d b y

a B oa rd of Commis sio ne rs , o ne of

wh om i s desig nated a s the Mayor. The T ownship also has a PlanningBoa rd, which is an inde pendent g overnme ntal body

from the Township. The Camden County I mprovement Authority

(“CCI A”) is a n e nti ty c re a te d b y

the Camde n Co un ty

B oa rd of F re e ho lde rs , w hic h is a

uth or ize d to a ssi st municipalities with financingpublic projec ts.3

T h e W e s t m o n tT h e a t e r

r e d e v e l o p m e n tp r o

j e c tb e g anw h e nth e T o w n s h i p an d th e C C IA enter ed into a Nove mber 1, 1998 L ease -Purcha se Ag ree ment for the Westmont Theate r prope rty . Under that ag ree ment, the Township transf err ed title to the Westmont Theater prope rty to the CCI A and in re turn, the CCI A provided f inancingto the Township for improve ments to the p r o p e rty . T h e C C IAf

un d e d th e r e d e v e l o p m e n tp r o

j e c tb y i s s u i n g $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 i nb o n d s . T h e C C IA lease d the prope rty

back to the T ownship, g iving the T ownship phy sical possession and c ontrol of the pre mises. Since 1998, the CCI A has he ld titl e to the Westmont Theater proper ty . In the May

26, 2004 Ag ree ment betwee n the Township and WDG, the pa rties ag ree d that any alteration, amendment, or modification was invalid unless memorialized in writing. The y also ag ree d that failure of either party to insist upon strict perf

ormanc e of a

ny term or oblig ation
un de r t he Agre e me nt w a s n ot t o b e c on str ue d a s a wa ive r o r r e lin qu ishme nt o f a ny te rm s o r r ig hts under the Ag ree ment. The Agree ment, alongwith its attached Agree ment of Sale, set the c ontrac tual para meters for a n eventua l conveyance of title to the WestmontTheater to WDG. That conte mplated conveyance was c ontinge nt on consummation of the transa ction in the Ag ree ment. Also, WDG
was re quired to obtain pre liminary and fina l site plan approva l from the Township bef ore conveyance of title. Termination of the A g ree ment for a ny rea son would nullify

the Ag ree ment of Sale. The Agree ment provided WDG with a sixt y day due dilige nce pe riod, commenc ing on May 26 , 2 00 4, duri ngwh ic h p e ri od WDGc ou ld c on du c t any ins pe c tio ns or

inv e sti g a tio ns it desired to de termine whe ther it wished to g o forwa rd with the Ag ree ment. I f a c ondition was found that wa s unsatisfactor y to WDG in it s sole discretion, it was pe rmitted to terminate the4

Ag ree ment. I f WDG did not terminate the Agree ment duringthe due dilig ence period, WDG
was re quired to pre pare and submit to the Township a proposed “ Redeve lopment Project Plan,” as def ined in the Ag ree ment, by September 23, 2004. The Township Commi ssioners wer e require d to reviewWDG’s Project Plan within thirty day s of re ceipt. The Commi ssioners wer e
re qu ir e d to e ith e r a

pp ro ve the Pr oje c t Pla

n, in whic h c a se WDGwo uld pr oc e e d w iththe pr oje c t, or advise WDG why

the plan wa s inadequate and mee t with W DG to re solve any differ ence s. WDG did not ex erc ise its right to terminate the Ag ree ment duringthe due dilig ence pe ri od that to ok pla c e May

26 , 2 00 4, thr ou g h July

25 , 2 00 4. Th e re fo re , WD G w a s c on tr a c tua lly require d to prepa

re a nd submit t o the Township a pr oposed Project Plan by September 23, 2004. WDG did not subm it a Project Plan by that deadline or

at any time therea fter. WDG ’s fa ilure to t ime ly

su bmi t a Pr oje c t Pla

n c on sti tut e d a

de fa ult un de r t he Agre e me nt. The Township e x plained the Plan’s inade quacie s, but did not pl ace WDG in default. Instead, a s the District Court corr ectly found, “a prac tice beg an that would per sist throughout the ter m of the
c on tr a c t — t ime fr ame s art ic ulate d th e re in w e re no t a dh e re d to , a nd the To wn sh ip l ibe ra lly g rante d WDG ext ensions of contra ctual dea dlines. . . . Those extensions were not memor ialized in writing.” Slip op. at 9-10, J une 15, 2009 (Irena s, J .). Under the Ag ree ment, WDG was re quired to first obtain the Township’s approva l of WDG’s Project Plan and then obta in the Planning B oard’ s preliminary site plan approva l. Instead, in Mar ch 2005, WDG beg an the pr ocess of obtaining the Planning B oard’ s approva l of WDG’s conce ptual site plans for the Westmont Theate r, without havingfirst submitted a pr op os e d Pr oje c t Pla

n to the To wn sh ip. Ov e r t he fo llo wi ngmonths , WD G a nd its e ng ine e rs , B a c h A sso c iate s, P.C. , s ub mitte d v olumin ou s d oc ume nts to t he Plann ingB oa

rd , in c lud inga

sit e5

plan, a tra ffic impac t study , and dra inag e ca lculations. There is no evidence WDG delivere d any of these submissions to the Township for conside ration by the Commiss ioners. Pang appea

red be fore the Planning B oard on a number oc casions, see king a pproval for WDG’s site plan. DuringPang ’s appe ara nce be fore the B oard on July 7, 2005, the B oard
e xpre sse d c on c e rn

wi th WD G’ s a

pp lic a tio n p ri mari ly

be c a us e it f a ile d to a de qu a te ly

a dd re ss parkingfor the Westmont Theate r. WDG neve r submitted a re vised application for site plan
a pp ro va l and

ne ve r s ub mitte d a

Pr oje c t Pla

n to the To wn sh ip f

or re vie w a nd a pp ro va l. T he re is no evidenc e the PlanningBoa rd eve r re ache d a dec ision on the merits of WDG’s site plan. Fr om the inception of the A g ree ment, both WDG and the Township wer e aw are that WDG anticipated a

volume of theater patrons that far exceede d the ca

pacity of the theater proper ty ’s exist ing pa

rkinglot. Both WDG and the Township we re a war e that findinga solution to WD G’ s p ark ingne e ds po se d a c ha lle ng e . Pa

nga c kn ow le dg e d s he kn e w p ark ingwa s g oin g to be an issue be fore she sig ned the Agree ment. She also knew pa rkingwas the r esponsibility of WDG, not the Township, under the A g ree ment. Pangand he r c ouns e l e xplor e d a

numbe r o f p os sib le , b ut u ns uc c e ssf ul s olutio ns to WDG’s parkingneeds. The y focuse d their ef

forts on ac quiring a neig hboringvaca nt lot, known as the Russell Cast Stone property , to provide par king f or the Westmont Theater . The Walters Gr ou p, thr ou g h a

re late d e nti ty , Ro se Hi ll A sso c iate s, L L C ( “ Ros e Hi ll” ), ow ne d th e Rus se ll proper ty . Rose Hill declined to sell or lea se the prope rty to WDG. WDGanti c ipate d th a t th e To wn sh ip w ou ld t ake the Rus se ll p ro pe rt y by e min e nt d oma in for public use , including WDG’ s use. The Township had completed a parkingstudy , which indicated that the Russell prope rty was the most log ical sourc e of a dditional parkingfor the6

To wn sh ip’ s d ow nto wn

dis tr ic t. T ow ns hip of

fi c ia ls c on sid e re d a c qu isi tio n o f t he Rus se ll pr op e rt y in l a te 20 06 to e arl y

20 07 . D ur ingthi s p e ri od , WD G w a s to ld t hat th e To wn sh ip w ou ld ob ta in t he Rus se ll p ro pe rt

y e ith e r b y purc ha se or

the e xer c ise of

e min e nt d oma in. No ne the le ss, the Township neve r moved for war d to acquire the Russell property
. Whil e WDG strug g led to find ade quate pa rkingin 2006, Township repre sentatives sug g ested amending the Ag ree ment to permit WDG to accomplish the re development in phase s. The pha sed plan pre sented no solutions for WDG’s par king ne eds, howe ver. A s expl ained by Pang , th e fi rs t ph a se wo uld re de ve lop the pr op e rt

y surr ound ingthe the a te r, and the se c on d p ha se would rede velop the Westmont Theater itself. Pang believed that there w as ade quate pa rking available on the Westmont Theater pr operty to meet the nee ds of the first pha se. WDG hoped that a so lut ion to t he pa rk ingne e ds of

the Th e a te r i tse lf

wo uld be fo un d b e fo re the se c on d p ha se
commence d. Pang believed the Russell property could be that solution. A written amendment to the Ag ree ment was pre pare d, circ ulated, commente d upon, and revised in late 2006 or ea rly 2007. WDG then understood that the Township’s signature on the
wr itt e n ame ndme nt w a s f or thc omi ng . Pa

ngkn e w r e de ve lop me nt o f t he Wes tmo nt T he a te r w a s a public projec t and under stood no one elec ted offic ial could bind the Township without ge tting formal a pprovals fr om the Township Commi ssioners. The Township, however , put the
c o n te mp late d

ame n dme n t o nh o ld

b e c a u s e n e wCo mm is s io n e r s w e r e to b e e le c te d in th e n e xt municipal elec tion cy cle in May 2007. Pang admitted no written ame ndment to the Ag ree ment
was e ver e ntere d into and the proposed a mendment was ne ver e x ecute d. On May 13 , 2 00 7, the To wn sh ip e le c te d a ne w mun ic ipa l g ov e rnme nt. Ma y or Rand a ll W. Teague and Commissioners J ohn C. Foley and Paul Doug herty

wer e ele cted. When they took7

office , the Ag ree ment was the only enfor cea ble contra ct betwe en the Township and WDG. In e arl y 20 07 , M ay or

Te a g ue and

Commis sio ne r D ou g he rt y me t ov e r l un c h w ith
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f

th e W a l t e r s G r o u

p t o o b t a i nb a c k g r o un d

i n f o r m a t i o no nth e R

u s s e l l p r o p e rty, including the history

of litigation between the Township and Rose Hill conce rningthe prope rty . Mayor Tea g ue wa

nted to find out what Rose Hill intended to do with the proper ty . He lea

rned Rose Hill wanted to deve lop the proper ty for r esidential use. At a mee ting in Jul y

2007, the new T ownship administration met with W DG. The meetingwas attended by

J oanna Pangand her

fathe r, Stephan Pang , who had investe d in WDG, Mayor Tea g ue, and f

ormer Ma y or Will iam J . Park, Jr. As described by Pang , the meeting focuse d on “updating[May or Tea g ue] on where the projec t stood and how the projec t was not being. . . phased.” (PangDep., 146:12-15, July 7, 2008.) Afte r the mee ting, Pangcalled Ma y or Tea g ue numer ous times to follow-up, but he never responde d. At that point, W DG wa s waiting to move forwa

rd with phased r edeve lopment, pending approva l by the Township. By letter of N ovember

12, 2007, the Township notified WDG it was in defa ult, stating that th e To wn sh ip w a s “ fr us tr a te d w iththe la c k o f p ro g re ss” and that “ the de a dli ne s se t f

or th i n the May 26, 2004 Redeve lopment Ag ree ment have a ll ex pired without an a pproved rede velopment conc ept beingput into mot ion.” (L etter, A pp. 1869a-1870a .) This letter plac ed WDGon fo rm a l no tic e it w a s in

de fa ult of the Agre e me nt “ on

the ba sis that [WDG ] ha s f a ile d to submit a Redevelopment Projec t Plan as defined in the A g ree ment.” Id. Un de r t he Agre e me nt, W DG h ad t hi rt y

day s t o cu re t he d efau lt or t he T own sh ip cou ldtermi nat e th e Agreem ent . By le tte r d a te d D e c e mbe r 6 , 2 00 7, WDG ’s c ouns e l r e sp on de d to the To wn sh ip’ s n oti c e of de fa ult , resubmitting WDG’s e arlier proposal to phase the re development pr oject. B y letter dated8

Dec ember

10, 2007, the Township re sponded, indicatingthat the phasingplan re plicated WDG’s prior submission, but failed to meet the Ag ree ment’s def inition of a Project Plan. By letter dated De c e mbe r 1 3, 20 07 , th e To wn sh ip t e rm inate d th e Agre e me nt “ fo r f a ilure to . . . c ur e the de fa ult identified in the Township’s letter of Nove mber 12, 2007.” (L etter, A pp. 1891a.) W DG s u ed , al l egi n g b re ac ho f c o n tra ct , b re ac ho f t h e du ty o f go o d fa i than d fa i r d ea l i n g, and neg lige nt misreprese ntation by the Township of Ha ddon, and its newly elec ted Mayor Tea g ue and Commissioners Fole y and Doug herty

(the “ Township Def

endants” ). WDG also sued CCI A as a

“name d party

in interest as they

are the re cord owner of

the subject Westmont Theater,” but WDG pled “[t] here are no aff irmative cla ims ag ainst [C CI A].” (Am. Compl. ¶ 7, App. 88.) The Township De fenda

nts moved for summary

judgme nt on all claims pled by WDG. After the close of

discovery , CCI A moved to dismiss W DG’s plea ding unde r F eder al Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(c ). At ora l argument on both motions on J une 9, 2009, whe n questioned by the District Court whether CCI A was “ rea lly

in this case,” WDG’ s counsel conf irmed that WDG
asser ted no af firmative c laims ag ainst CCI A and state d, “the only thing they

have is they

hold the
rec ord title to the proper

ty .” (D oc. 75, Mot. Hr’ gTr. 3:14-4:04, June 9, 2009.) By its Order of J une 15, 2009, the District Court g rante d both motions filed by Def endants, whic h disposed of WDG’s claims in their entire ty , and fur ther orde red that the temporar y restra ints placed e arlier

on conveyance of the Westmont Theater proper ty be dissolved. II. STA ND AR

D A ND SCO P E OF RE VI EW W DG ap p ea l s th e D i s tri ctC o urt ’s J un e 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 Or d er , ra i s i n g two i s s u es th atch al l en ge the Di str ic t Co ur

t’ s e ntr y of summa ry jud g me nt o n WD G’ s c la ims a g a ins t th e To wn sh ipWe decline to re ach the District Court’s dismiss al of WDG’s c ase a g ainst CCI A, or a ny issues 1 or cla ims other than those set for th in W DG’s state ment of issues, bec ause WDG ha s not prese rved the m on appea l. Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 28(a) (3), ( 5), and ( 9) and Thir d Cir c uit L oc a l App e llate Rul e 28 .1 (a ) r e qu ir e d WD G t o s e t f or th “ ‘a ll i ssu e s p re se nte d f or a pp e a l, toge ther with supportingarguments and citations.’” Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1 F.3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Sim mo ns v . Ci ty of Phil ad e lph ia , 947 F.2d 1042, 1065 ( 3d Cir. 1991)). WDG did not set forth any other issues or c laims in it s statement of issues or in the r emainder of its brief on appe al, and ther efor e, we need not c onsider any other issues. Se e In st. for Sc ie nti fic Info., Inc. v . Gordon &Breach, Sc i. Publ’ers, Inc

. , 931 F.2d 1002, 1011 ( 3d Cir. 1991) (holding plaintiff aba

ndoned its brea ch of c ontrac t claim on appea l). 9 De fe n d an t s fo r: (1 ) b re ac ho f c o n tra ctan d (2 ) b re ac ho f t h e du ty

o f go o d fa i than d fa i r d ea l i n g. 1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1332 and we have jur isdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district cour t’s decision g rantinga motion for summary judgme nt pursuant to Rule 56, applying the same standa rd as that use d by

the District Court. Am . E ag le Outfitters v. Lyle &Scott Ltd. , 584 F.3d 575, 580- 81 (3d Cir. 2009). A motion for summary judgme nt will not be defeated by “the mer e existence” of some disputed fa cts, but will be denied when ther e is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 24 7- 48 (1 98 6) . In d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he dis pute is g e nu ine , th e c ourt ’s fu nc tio n is no t to weig h the evidenc e or de termine the truth of the matter, but only

to determine whether

the evidenc e of r ecor d is such that a re asonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty . Id. at 248-49. III . D ISC USS ION A. Breac h of

Contrac t In g rantingsummary

judgme nt, the District Court found that no rea sonable jury rely ing on the evidenc e could c onclude that the T ownship Defe ndants brea ched the Ag ree ment as10

advanc ed by

WDG. I n the District Court, WDG contended the Township Def endants bre ache d Sections 6(g ), “Purc hase of the Westmont Theater Projec t,” 7(b), “ Eminent Domain,” a nd 7(c) , “Cooperation,” of the Agree ment. The District Court treated WDG’s express alleg ation that Se c tio n 6 (g ) w a s b re a c he d a s in c or po ratin g an a lle g a tio n th a t Se c tio n 2 wa s b re a c he d b e c a us e both Sections 2 and 6(g ) of the A g ree ment perta ined to conveyance of the Westmont Theater proper ty to WDG. W DG adva

nced no othe r bre ach of

contra ct claims. The D istrict Court found
no rea sonable jury

could conc lude that WDG complied with prec onditions t o the oper ation of Se c tio ns 2, 6( g ), 7( b) and 7( c ) o f t he Agre e me nt, and

the re fo re De fe nd ants ’ o bli g a tio ns to perf orm under those provisions never a rose. On appe al, WDG argues the District Court er red in c oncluding WDG was in defa ult of the Ag ree ment for f

ailure to submit a Project Plan, and the Township Def endants did not brea ch the Agre e me nt. WDGc on te nd s th a t th e Di str ic t Co ur t ig no re d a

nd dis re g ard e d e vid e nc e in s o ruling . WDG is mi staken. The rec ord WDG prese nts on appea l was fully revie wed a

nd considere d by

the District J udg e, who c orre ctly conclude d that evidenc e ra ised no g enuine issues of disputed mater ial fac t. The District Court did not impermissibl y weig h evidenc e and make
cre dibilit y

deter minations as char g ed by

WDG. Rather, the District Court prope rly disreg arde d the ir re le va nt d e po sit ion

te sti mony

and e vid e nc e on

wh ic h WD G l arg e ly

ba se s it s a

pp e a l. A lso without merit and lackingany support in the rec ord ar e alleg ations of “subter fug e and conspirac y ” amongthe Township Def endants, whic h purportedly prec luded WDG from concludingthe Ag ree ment and provingits breac h of contra ct claims. The District Court did not err in concludingthere wer e no g enuinely disputed issues of materia l fac t as to whether the Township Def

endants bre ache d any

provision of the Ag ree ment.11

Where the te rms of a c ontrac t are clea r and una mbiguous, c ourts enfor ce those terms as wr itten. Levison v. W

eintraub , 521 A.3d 909, 910 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), certif. denied, 527 A.2d 4 7 0 (N
. J
. 1 9 8 7 ) ( ci t i n g Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co. , 161 A.2d 717, 720 (N.J. 1960) (ruling that “it is the function of a court to enf

orce [a contrac t] as written a nd not to make a be tter contra ct for e ither of the pa rties.”) . The undisputed fa cts show WDG never complied with the Ag ree ment’s re quirement to submit a “Rede velopment Project Plan,” a s defined in the Ag ree ment, for the T ownship’s revie w and a pproval within four months of the e ffe ctive date of the Ag ree ment, by

September 23, 2004. The Township and WDG neve r conc luded an enfor cea ble amendme nt to the Ag ree ment, which could not be mor e cle ar: “No alter ation, amendment or

modification here of shall be va lid unless ex ecute d by an instrument in writing by the Parties her eto.” ( Ag ree ment § 16(b), “ Amendment; Waiver,” App. 1296a.) I t is undisput ed no written ame ndment was e ver e x ecute d. On appe al, WDG claims the Township De fenda nts breac hed the Agree ment by not
c onve yingthe Wes tmo nt T he a te r p ro pe rt y to WD G. Th e To wn sh ip w a s und e r n o o bli g a tio n to convey the prope rty

to WDG. Section 2 of the Ag ree ment provided that “ the Westmont Theater Property shall be sold to [ WDG] under the terms of the A g ree ment of Sale . . . .” (App. 1274a .) Under Section 6(g ) of the A g ree ment, and Sections 6(b) and (c ) of the A g ree ment of Sale, the Township’s obligation to convey the prope rty

was c ontinge nt on the consummation of the transac tion in the Agr eeme nt and WDG’s re ceipt of a ll permits and approva ls from the Township. Be cause WDG never submitt ed a Re development Projec t Plan, W DG neve r obtained any permits or appr ovals from the Township, and the Township’s oblig ation to convey the Westmont Theater prope rty never arose . As a re sult, the Township Defe ndants did not breac h12

Sections 2 and 6(g ) of the A g ree ment. WDGa lso c la ims the To wn sh ip b re a c he d th e Agre e me nt b y no t takin g the Rus se ll proper ty by eminent domain for WDG’ s use. The Township had no obligation to acquire the Russell property

for WDG, either

by eminent domain or purc hase. Sec tion 7(b) of the Ag ree ment provided that the “ Township shall acquire any privately -owne d lots identified in the Redeve lopment Project Plan for whic h [W DG] has not entere d into ag ree ment of sale a s of the expiration of the Neg otiation Period, as set forth in Section 6.c., a bove . . . .” ( App. 1283a.) The “Ne g otiation Period” would have begun once the Township approve d WDG’s Project Plan. WDG, however , never

submitt ed a Proje ct Plan and the Ne g otiation Period never c ommenced or expired. Moreove r, Section 7(b) obligated the Township to ac quire only those “privately -owne d lots identified in the Redevelopment Projec t Plan.” ( Id. ) The Russell prope rty was not identified in t he Agre e me nt a s a

pr op e rt y fo r i nc lus ion

in t he Pr oje c t Pla

n. F or the se re a so ns , th e To wn sh ip had no contr actua l obligation to ac quire the Russell prope rty by eminent domain and did not brea ch Section 7(b)
. Finally , WDG contends the Township De fenda nts breac hed Section 7(c ) of the Ag ree ment, entitled “Coopera tion,” which expressly

require d the par

ties to act in ac corda

nce with the covena

nt of g ood faith and f

air de aling . The District Court did not err in concludingthe To wn sh ip D e fe nd ants did no t br e a c h Se c tio n 7 (c ) o f t he Agre e me nt f

or the same re a so ns the y

did not brea ch the implied cove nant of g ood faith and f air de aling , as discussed be low. B. B r e ac h of t he Duty o f G oo d F ait h and F airDe ali ng In g rantingsummary

judgme nt, the District Court found there was no ba sis from which a
rea sonable jury

could find that the Township De fenda nts breac hed the c ovenant of g ood faith and13

fa ir de a lin g a s a dv anc e d b y

WDG . A ll c on tr a c tin g pa rt ie s in Ne w Je rs e y

are re qu ir e d to a c t in g ood faith and de al fa irly , whether the cove nant is express or implied. Brunswick Hills Racquet Clu b, In c . v . R ou te18Sh op ping Ct r. As so cs. , 8 64 A. 2d

38 7, 39 5 (N. J. 20 05 ); So ns of T hu nd e r, Inc. v . Borden, Inc

. , 690 A.2d 575, 587 (N.J. 1997) (noting long standing rule that “ [e] very contra ct in New Jersey

contains an implied cove nant of g ood faith and f air de aling ”). B efor e the Di str ic t Co ur

t, WD G c ha lle ng e d th e c on du c t of Ma y or Te a g ue and

va ri ou s r e pr e se ntativ e s o f h is administration. The District Court did not err in c oncluding that even if WDG proved at trial that those ac tions occurr ed, no re asonable jury could find that the motives and c onduct of the T o wn s h i p De fe n d an t s co n s t i tu t eda b re ac ho f t h e c o v en an to f go o d fa i than d fa i r d ea l i n g. On a pp e a l, WD G c omp la ins that th e Di str ic t Co ur t f oc us e d o n te rm s o f t

he Agre e me nt, ignor ing the Township Def endants’ pur

ported ba d faith and la ck of f air de aling . WDG contends that the Township ac ted in bad fa ith by notifying WDG it was in de fault and te rminating the Ag ree ment. The Township’s e x erc ise of its contrac tual rig hts to default WDG and ter minate the Ag ree ment alone c annot constitute bad fa ith conduct. WDG cannot e mploy the implied covena

nt of g ood faith and f

air de aling to override the express terms of the A g ree ment. W ilson v. Amerada He

ss Corp. , 7 73 A. 2d

11 21 , 1 12 6 (N. J. 20 01 ). Rathe r, WDGmus t c ome fo rw ard wi th some evidenc e that whe n the Township Def endants notified WDG it was in def ault and terminated the Ag ree ment, they acte d with a bad f

aith motive to deprive WDG of a nticipated benef its of the contemplated the ater rede velopment projec t. There is no such evidenc e. WDG complains it was not give n an opportunity to work with Mayor Tea g ue’s ne w administration before the Township terminate d the Ag ree ment. WDG was in defa ult of the Ag ree ment for more than two y ear s befor e Mayor Tea g ue’s a dminist ration took offic e. The prior14

administration chose to ig nore that defa ult. The Ag ree ment, howeve r, wa s clea r and unambig uous that either pa rty ’s lack of

insistence on strict per formanc e did not constitute a waiver
. See Kampf

, 161 A.2d at 720 (noting“simple contra ct law” that “[w]hen the terms of [a] contra ct ar e cle ar, it is the func tion of a cour t to enforc e it as written a nd not to make a be tter contra ct for e ither of the pa rties”) . The Te ague administration had no e x press or implied contra ctual oblig ation to continue the political and soc ial policies of the pr evious administration. Moreove r, the Te ague administration had no e x press or implied contr actua l obligation to amend the Ag ree ment to suit W DG. J ust as WDG argued bef

ore the District Court, WDG argues on appe al that the District Court ig no re d te sti mony

and oth e r e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat th e To wn sh ip D e fe nd ants imp ro pe rl y fa vo re d th e int e re sts of

the Wal te rs Gr ou

p a nd Ros e Hi ll i n th e ir

pla ns to d e ve lop the Rus se ll proper ty for r esidential use. F or example, WDG complains the District Court ignor ed a “ secr et back- door mee ting” amongrepr esentatives of the Te ague administration and the Walter s Group to discuss the Russell property over lunc h at the Tavistock Country Club, without inviting Pang or any other re prese ntative of WDG. (Appe llant’s Br . at 33-34.) WDG a rgues Mayor Tea g ue was motivated to terminate the Ag ree ment beca use his administration was promoting the Walters Group. WDG pre sents some circ umstantial evidence that the Tea g ue administration favored the interests of Rose Hill over the intere sts of WDG. Nonetheless, ther e is no evidenc e the Te ague administration had an imprope r motive for doingso. May or Tea g ue wa s elec ted to serve the interests of his constituents as he be st determined those inter ests to be. Moreove r, WDG was not
e nti tle d to fa

vo ra ble c on sid e ratio n b e c a

us e it n e ve r h a d a

ny e nf or c e a ble ri g hts to a c qu ir e or

us e the Russell property
.15

WDG also argues that the District Court ig nored te stimony and other evidenc e showing that th e To wn sh ip D e fe nd ants c omp ro mis e d WD G’ s e xpe c tatio ns and ri g hts to r e c e ive be ne fi ts under the Ag ree ment. There is no evidence the Township Def endants e ng ag ed in any

conduct that frustrated or de nied WDG its contemplated bene fits under the A g ree ment. Moreove r, WDG could have cure d its default under the Ag ree ment within thirty day s of the Township’s Nove mber 12, 2007 notice of de fault. WDG failed to c ure its own def ault. IV. CONCLUSION For the fore g oing r easons, we will affirm the D istrict Court’s judgment in all re spects.