26 Pa. D. & C.5th 294
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2012Background
- Plaintiffs and defendants entered into a January 16, 2005 real estate sale; $5,000 escrow was required but not deposited.
- At closing (June 29, 2005), the parties entered a verbal agreement waiving escrow and defendants promised to perform specified repairs.
- Plaintiffs prepaid the work by waiving escrow, but defendants did not complete the repairs.
- Plaintiffs allege an inadequate and defective septic system was installed without a permit and not built to code, with misrepresentation on the seller disclosure form.
- Plaintiffs seek damages for the $5,000 escrow/repair shortfall, $19,650 for a new septic system, and storage fees for a piano left behind by defendants.
- The action encompasses three counts: breach of contract, UTPCPL, and unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UTPCPL applicability to investment property | Plaintiffs contend UTPCPL applies. | Defendants contend UTPCPL applies only to purchases for personal use. | UTPCPL not applicable; purchase for investment; motion sustained. |
| Unjust enrichment viability alongside an express contract | Plaintiffs claim unjust enrichment due to non-performance. | Existence of an express contract precludes quasi-contract recovery. | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed; express contract precludes quasi-contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Forge Towers South Condominium v. Ron-ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 1990) (UTPCPL damages requirements for ascertainable loss and consumer status)
- Growall v. Maietta, 931 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 2008) (UTPCPL applies to residential purchases; investment property not personal use)
- Lal v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 858 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 2004) (UTPCPL applicability to non-personal-use purchases)
- Wurth by Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 584 A.2d 403 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (standard for ruling on preliminary objections; factual inferences limited)
- Slaybaugh v. Newman, 479 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 1984) (demurrer standard; resolve in favor of sufficiency)
- Cianfrani v. Commonwealth, State Employees’ Retirement Bd., 505 Pa. 294, 479 A.2d 468 (1984) (demonstrates when any theory supports claim, dismissal improper)
- Temple Univ. Hosp. v. Healthcare Mgmt., 832 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2003) (unjust enrichment discussion in context of contract)
- Villoresi v. Femminella, 856 A.2d 78 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unjust enrichment only where no express contract governs)