Leges et Ratio

Censored question on Law Stack Exchange: I had a contract for a service from Company A. Then either (we're getting different versions) - Company B "officially took over the management of your account" from Company A, or - Company B and Company A merged. Then Company B merged with Company C. They say that they don't have the contract I signed, and the information they give me now is inconsistent with the terms of my contract, of which I have a DocuSign pdf. The worst case for me is the contradictory information they are providing. It's fine for me if the contract stands as is. The best case would be the contract being terminated due to lost trust in this company and the market now having lower rates. What happens now? Given that you are not a party to the mergers, these cannot result in changes in your rights and obligations pursuant to your contract unless you agree to those changes. This means that the terms of your contract prevail over the contradictory informa...

 From a question that got censored on Law Stack Exchange: My lease in NJ, USA, is ending soon and my roommate is moving out. The landlord says that in order to sign a new lease I would have to sign it alone. I have lived here for 2 years now with my old roommate, not a single delinquent payment or major issue. I cannot afford to pay twice as much rent at the moment. Is landlord's new requirement lawful? Yes, it is lawful. Landlord's new requirement is within his freedom of contract. It does not seem to be in conflict with New Jersey current legislation on landlord-tenant matters. The condition as formulated here only restricts the number of landlord's counterparties. For instance, the landlord's intent might be to preempt risks and costs inherent to suing/evicting multiple tenants or litigating matters of joint-and-several liability. The new requirement could backfire from an economical standpoint if the only signer defaults on his payments, but that does not affect the...