Flanagan, S. v. Peoples Choice Fed. Credit Union
797 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- In 2014 Flanagan (individually and d/b/a Flanagan Auto Detailing) obtained a $6,336.50 judgment against Peoples Choice FCU before a magistrate, then appealed and filed a breach-of-contract complaint in county court.
- The trial court sustained Peoples Choice’s preliminary objections to the original complaint for lack of specificity and allowed an amended complaint.
- Flanagan filed a late amended complaint alleging: (Count I) Peoples Choice issued an Invitation to Bid for a 2010 Ford Focus, promised to sell to the bid closest to the asking price, and Flanagan orally bid $6,500 (closest), so a contract formed and was breached; (Count II) Flanagan detailed/stored/displayed the car at Peoples Choice’s request and was not paid $600.
- Peoples Choice objected to the amended complaint for insufficient specificity and lack of capacity to sue (arguing the Invitation targeted credit-union members and Flanagan never alleged membership).
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the amended complaint failed to plead material facts (time/place/membership/course of dealing) necessary to show an enforceable express or implied contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived capacity-to-sue objection by not raising it earlier | Flanagan: Peoples Choice should have raised capacity in original preliminary objections; capacity exists because Flanagan is an adult | Peoples Choice: Invitation to Bid was limited to credit-union members; capacity/standing issues arise from the amended facts and may be raised to the amended pleading | Court: Declined to address waiver/standing as unnecessary; dismissal affirmed on specificity grounds |
| Whether the amended complaint pleaded sufficient specificity to enable defense | Flanagan: Attachment of Invitation to Bid and allegations about oral bid and prior course of accepting oral bids suffice | Peoples Choice: Complaint lacks specific facts (when/where notice to public was made; whether Flanagan was a member; facts showing prior course of dealing or payment for services) | Court: Amended complaint lacked material factual averments (time/place/membership/course of dealing) and failed Rule 1019 specificity; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for sustaining preliminary objections and Rule 1028 grounds)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1019 requires pleading ultimate material facts sufficient for defendant to prepare a defense)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements of breach of contract and need for sufficiently certain mutual obligations)
- Ammlung v. City of Chester, 302 A.2d 491 (Pa. Super. 1973) (insufficient specificity inquiry: whether complaint enables defendant to prepare a defense)
- Ingrassia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Walsh, 486 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 1984) (recognition and effect of contracts implied in fact; look to surrounding circumstances and course of dealing)