Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co.
100 A.3d 602
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Gambone Construction Co. (appellant) and Prieto Corporation (appellee) dispute CASPA applicability and an alleged oral contract for curb work.
- CASPA governs payments and contracts for improvements on real property; curb work is at issue.
- Prieto sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and CASPA violations based on four projects.
- The parties had a long course of dealing: Prieto bid, Gambone issued purchase orders, Prieto performed, Gambone invoiced, and Gambone paid some invoices.
- The appellate court held a curb is both a structure and an alteration of real property, within CASPA’s scope, and that evidence supported an oral contract for curb work.
- Judgment affirmed by the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CASPA covers curb work as an improvement | Prieto argues curb work is an improvement under CASPA | Gambone asserts CASPA excludes curbs from an improvement | CASPA covers curb work as an improvement |
| Whether evidence established an enforceable oral contract | Prieto contends conduct and invoices show an oral contract | Gambone claims lack of specific terms and meetings of the minds | Record supports existence of four oral contracts |
| Whether trial evidence suffices to find agreement terms and formation | Prieto asserts course of dealing and PO/invoices establish agreement | Gambone argues insufficient contract specificity | Evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict; no error in finding an oral contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. Steiman, 429 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1993) (established evidence for oral contract and course of dealings)
- Refuse Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Consol. Recycling & Transfer Sys., Inc., 448 Pa. Super. 402 (Pa. Super. 1996) (course of dealing matters in discerning an oral contract)
- Donnelly v. Bauer, 553 Pa. 596 (Pa. 1998) (affirmation on any basis; standard for review of verdicts)
- Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for review of bench trials; favorable view of evidence to sustain verdict)
- Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 2009) (CASPA purpose and definitions; real property and improvements)