
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.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!