Shafer Electric & Construction v. Mantia
67 A.3d 8
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Shafer Electric appeals a July 10, 2012 order granting the defendants' preliminary objections to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and strike the mechanics’ lien.
- The case centers on a written home improvement contract for a 34' x 24' addition to the appellees' garage; Shafer is licensed in WV but not registered in PA under HICPA.
- Shafer filed a mechanics’ lien April 29, 2011 and a complaint December 6, 2011 seeking about $37,874.26 for alleged home improvement work.
- Appellees filed preliminary objections (demurrer) February 1, 2012 arguing the contract is unenforceable under HICPA.
- The trial court held the contract invalid under HICPA and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing inability to recover under quantum meruit.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court reverses, allowing quasi-contract recovery when no valid written contract exists, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HICPA bar quantum meruit when no valid contract exists? | Shafer: quantum meruit recovery is contemplated despite lack of a valid contract. | Manti: if contract invalid under HICPA, no quantum meruit recovery. | No; quasi-contract recovery survives when no valid contract exists. |
| Does HICPA apply where a consumer who is a contractor hires another contractor for part of a project? | Shafer argues HICPA applicability should not foreclose quantum meruit if no valid contract exists. | Manti contends HICPA governs the contract validity and recovery. | HICPA applicability does not automatically bar quasi-contract recovery when no written contract exists. |
| Should mutual mistake or equitable estoppel affect enforcement under HICPA? | Plaintiff asserts mutual mistake and equitable estoppel arguments support recovery. | Defendant asserts the contract's noncompliance governs outcome. | Court did not rely on mutual mistake or estoppel to affirm recovery; focuses on lack of valid contract. |
| Did trial court err in interpreting 517.7(a) to foreclose quantum meruit under 517.7(g)? | Shafer argues 517.7(g) permits quantum meruit when (a) fails. | Manti argues 517.7(a) validity governs recovery, limiting (g). | Trial court erred; quantum meruit survives when no valid contract exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durst v. Milroy General Contracting, Inc., 52 A.3d 357 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quasi-contract recovery remains when no written contract exists)
- Wilson Area School Dist. v. Skepton, 895 A.2d 1250 (Pa. 2006) (unjust enrichment not applicable where a written contract exists)
- Temple University Hosp., Inc. v. Healthcare Management Alternatives, Inc., 832 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements of the tort-based quantum meruit framework and unjust enrichment)
- American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010) (definition of quantum meruit as equitable restitution for services)
- Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., 967 A.2d 963 (Pa. Super. 2009) (alternative theories of recovery may be pleaded)