Waldron Electric v. Caseber, D.
161 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- WaldrOn Electric Heating and Cooling, Inc. contracted to install surge and lightning protection at the Casebers' residence.
- The Casebers rescinded the home-improvement agreement on the first business day after signing, within the three‑day rescission period set by 73 P.S. § 517.7(b).
- Prior to the rescission, Waldron had entered the residence and installed equipment.
- After the rescission, the Casebers attempted to return the installed equipment to Waldron; Waldron refused the equipment and called it "junk."
- The Superior Court majority held that, under § 517.7(g), a contractor who complied with subsection (a) may recover the reasonable value of services if a court finds denial of recovery inequitable; the opinion here is a dissent (Justice Musmanno) arguing that the majority’s interpretation undermines the statutory rescission right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Waldron) | Defendant's Argument (Caseber) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contractor may recover the reasonable value of work performed when the owner rescinds within the 3‑day rescission period | § 517.7(g) permits recovery for reasonable value of services requested by owner; equity may require payment | § 517.7(b) gives an unqualified 3‑day right to rescind; allowing recovery for work done during that period nullifies the statutory protection | Majority: Contractor may recover reasonable value if court finds denial inequitable; Dissent (Musmanno J.): Recovery during rescission period contradicts plain statutory text and should be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Warrantech Consumer Prods. Servs., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. in Liquidation, 96 A.3d 346 (Pa. 2014) (explaining when statutory language is ambiguous and permitting resort to canons of construction)