The Borough of Caldwell executed several contracts with defendant architect for professional services, then eventually sued the architect for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -277. Architect moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 4:6-2(e). Among other things, architect argued that: Caldwell improperly hired an unqualified expert to support the allegations in its breach of contract claim; Caldwell's unjust enrichment claim did not allege any benefit outside of the contract and should therefore fail; and that Caldwell's CFA claim failed because the "learned professional" exception to the CFA applies to architects. The trial court denied the motion. Architect successfully sought leave to appeal, challenging the Law Division's order denying the architect's motion to dismiss as to Caldwell's breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and CFA claims.
On leave granted, the court concluded: (1) Caldwell's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were sufficiently pled to survive the architect's Rule 4:6-2(e) motion; (2) architects are members of a "historically recognized 'learned' profession" exempt under the CFA; and (3) the "patent and sharp" conflict analysis articulated by the Supreme Court in Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 150 N.J. 255 (1997), is not required on this record. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the architect's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and unjust enrichment counts, but reversed the portion of the order denying the architect's motion to dismiss the CFA count.