Shafer Electric & Construction v. Mantia
626 Pa. 258
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Mantia homeowners contracted Shafer Electric & Construction to add a garage; contract lacked most 517.7(a) requirements but included detailed work and price.
- Work began October 2010; disputes over excavation, design changes, and negotiations led to a mutual stoppage.
- Parties invoiced for completed work; Shafer filed a mechanic’s lien February 23, 2011 and suit in November 2011.
- Trial court sustained Mantia’s preliminary objections, ruling contract void and quantum meruit barred by 517.7(g).
- Superior Court reversed, adopting Durst reasoning that 517.7(g) does not bar quantum meruit when no valid home improvement contract exists; Shafer appealed.
- This Court granted review to decide whether 517.7(g) precludes quantum meruit and whether Durst and Mantia conflict with the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 517.7(g) bars quantum meruit without a valid contract | Mantia argues 517.7(g) precludes any recovery | Shafer argues 517.7(g) permits quantum meruit when no valid contract exists | 517.7(g) does not preclude quantum meruit |
| Do Durst and Durational interpretations conflict with the Act | Mantia asserts Durst misreads silence on quasi-contracts | Shafer contends Durst aligns with statutory intent | Durst-like reasoning controls; quantum meruit allowed when no compliant contract exists |
| Whether the Act’s remedial structure supports common-law quasi-contract recovery | Mantia emphasizes strict contract-bar under 517.7(a) and g | Shafer emphasizes lack of express contract does not bar quasi-contract relief | Common-law quantum meruit viable where no valid contract exists |
| Preclusion of damages under contract vs. quantum meruit when contract invalid | Mantia argues all remedies barred by noncompliance | Shafer argues different remedies apply; quantum meruit limited to value of services | Quantum meruit recovery available; not precluded by noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Durst v. Milroy General Contracting, Inc., 52 A.3d 357 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Act does not bar quantum meruit when no written contract exists; silent on quasi-contract)
- Loch v. Fleth, 361 Pa. 340 (Pa. 1949) (quantum meruit sounds in restitution; not purely contractual)
- Zawada v. Pa. Sys. Bd. of Adjustment, 392 Pa. 207 (Pa. 1958) (applies where no action is barred from quantum meruit)
- Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 476 Pa. 270 (Pa. 1978) (equity not available where full remedy at law exists)
- Singer v. Sheppard, 464 Pa. 387 (Pa. 1975) (statutory/administrative action limits on remedies)
- Sixsmith v. Martsolf, 413 Pa. 150 (Pa. 1964) (equity not available where complete remedy at law exists)