*3 SPAETH, Before POPOVICH, JOHNSON and JJ. POPOVICH, Judge:
These are consolidated from an appeals Order entered by the court en banc dismissing appellants’ exceptions Chancellor’s For the findings. below, reasons set forth we affirm the lower court’s Order. “
It is settled that
‘the findings of fact of
[cjhancellor
who heard the
without
testimony
a jury, approved
banc,
court en
are entitled to
verdict;
of a
weight
jury’s
that such
are
findings
controlling and that the court’s decree
should not be reversed unless it
appears
court
its
abused
discretion or that the court’s
lack eviden-
findings
or that the
tiary support
court capriciously disbelieved the
” (Citations
evidence.’
omitted)
Hankin,
Hankin v.
Pa.Super.
accord Silo
v.
Realty Corp. Redevelopment
of The
Authority
City of
Philadelphia, 289
Pa.Super.
(1981).
A.2d 1053
The
chancellor’s findings are entitled
particular
in a
weight
case in which the credibility of the witnesses must be
evaluated,
carefully
because he has had the opportunity to
hear them and to observe their demeanor on the stand.
Krasner,
Sorokin
In George Zvonik-appellee with orally agreed Anna Zvonik, mother, his that he provide would the labor and materials to repair her home and construct a two-room addition thereto. Appellee also agreed to all the utili- pay mother in turn that promised taxes. The property and ties prior with that could live her and to and his appellee family In the to him. reliance property she would convey her death moved the premises into agreement, appellee said upon needed capital some the to get that he owned to sold lots (N.T. mother. by desired the improvements the make 65) wife borrowed 2/26/79, money at 61 & also Appellee’s to what union) the the ($200.....$300 supplement from credit obtained. Id. appellee work the the on appellee substantially completed
After homestead, deed conveyed by the mother property (Pauline). her Pauline daughter-in-law, Zvonik-appellant Thereafter, ejectment an in Pauline instituted action of the With relinquished property. this appellee possession deteriorated; action, family g., appellee relations e. was husband, with involved in an altercation Pauline’s Andrew led to (Andrew), which crimi- Zvonik-appellant filing Assault). However, charges (Aggravated pursuant nal 25,1974, on reached in court “stipulation” open February were nolle The that prossed. parties agreed an charges “fair appraise would val- impartial building contractor ue” that Andrew performed by appellee; of the work it in would full pay appellee accept would amount and 2/25/74, (N.T. his claim. at 2 compromise -6) and final As Zimmerman) a contractor was selected agreed, (Lloyd an June appraisal and he submitted on appellee, $8,520.00. the cost work (delineating done) totaling 7 infra. was with the supplied See note Andrew estimate stated part but failed to the amount thereof. pay any Moreover, 29, 1975,Andrew and on Pauline transferred May (Paul), in their son but retained property question therein. life estate any legal before the took January
It time, At that filed two Complaints Assump recourse. he 12 Civil 1978 13 Civil sit—No. and No. 1978—whichresulted favor, exceptions in his and the filed therein were rulings banc. appeal dismissed court en This followed. *5 314
No. 12 Civil 1978 suit, the four individuals the initially object Of of this only case, Pauline and Paul remain.1 The of their gravamen distilled, when is that the appellee failed to make out cause enrichment;” result, “unjust of action for as a he should be barred from We conclude recovery.2 otherwise. law, Pennsylvania the elements of a duty
“[UJnder
make restitution under the theory
unjust
enrichment
(1)
(2)
an enrichment and
an
if
require
injustice resulting
recovery for the enrichment
is denied.
Meehan v.
See
446,
410 Pa.
Township,
(1963).”
Cheltenham
(1980). that, evidence, find all
We based on appellee entitled to restitution for services he rendered he monies on the A review expended property. relevant case law on this matter will disclose the basis for prior pursue 1. Anna Zvonik died to trial and decided not to estate, against having the case her none been at raised the time. See Inc., County, Estate of Gasbarini Medical Center of Beaver Zvonik, As for Andrew his preliminary objections dropped party were sustained and he was as a (Record 3) from the suit. No. argues ($8,520.00) appel- 2. Pauline also that because her debt to the discharged by lee was a federal district court in the Western District Pennsylvania, longer legal obligation pay appellee. she no has a 4-5) (Appellants’ having Brief at This issue not been raised appellant findings, in her to the “EXCEPTIONS” lower court’s it is 1038(d). infra, waived. Pa.R.C.P. See also discussion wherein An- averment, proffers drew the identical which is also denied. Purcell, in Scott v. 264 Pa.Su- example: For position. our appellant proved A.2d 1088 per. *6 Purcell consented to agreement whereby of an oral existence Purcell, after in agent buying piece property. act as his succeeded in negotiations, getting months of several However, to a after agree purchase price. shortly to parties that he was having difficulty informed appellant Purcell a deed from the seller to obtaining financing project, was recorded. Oaklander Associates Associates Oaklander which vice Corp., presi- of Oakland Purcell was consisted wife and two others were shareholders. dent and his judge’s the Court in Scott reversed the trial Although Associates, holding of a non-suit as to Oaklander granting evidence was sufficient to warrant imposition that the trust, observations on Oak- why a constructive Court’s was enriched are unjustly equally applica- lander Associates bar, viz.: to the case at ble with to enrich- respect unjust
“The case is otherwise
Brentwood
Savings
In Buchanan v.
Federal
ment.
Association,
(1964)],
Pa.
Loan
[457
that
of a construc-
imposition
Court stated
Supreme
in
if
question
proper
trust on the
would be
property
tive
were able to show on remand that
appellants
enriched;
showing
had been
such a
appellees
unjustly
‘a
assertion that
the ends of
general
would amount
demand that a con-
policy
justice
substantial
public
trust be
Buchanan v. Brentwood
impressed.’
structive
Association,
and Loan
457 Pa. at
Savings
supra
Federal
155,
A.2d
See
Moreland
vich,
A.2d 772
Kimball
Restatement
Township, supra;
Barr
of Restitution §§
(1937). Here,
has made no
that
appellant
showing
Oaklander Associates
secured’ the
‘wrongfully
property
but he
question,
has shown that
it
received a
‘passively
it
benefit
that
would be unconscionable for
to retain.’
[it]
The fact
that Oaklander Associates may not on the
present
record be held to have known of Purcell’s wrong-
ful acts does not refute the basic point it
given
chance
buy
because
property, only
Purcell violated
Id.,
his duties to
as
appellant
appellant’s
agent.”
Pa.Super. at
Keeping
mind,
aforesaid in
we turn to the facts
trial,
At
instantly.
appellee testified that his
ap
mother
proached
that,
him with the offer
“. . . you build me two
rooms and
on
everything
side.
my
says youns
She
can
[sic]
move
the old part....
says, you
She
me as
keep
long as
I
(N.T.
live. Then the house is yours.”
2/6/79, at 61) On
cross-examination,
appellee reiterated the terms of the oral
*7
agreement.3 Id. at 79. This
accounting
corroborated by
a
(Nicholas Bruno),
disinterested witness
who stated that the
mother
if
“requested
[appellee]
rooms,
build
her two
[sic]
that he could live in the house.
And
due time ....
[s]he
Id. at 12 & 22.
him
give
would
a deed for the house.”4
Appellants
appeal object
testimony, having
3.
cannot now on
to this
trial,
exception
claiming
failed to take
to same at
that it violates the
Act,
(Pamphlet, 1981);
Dead Man’s
42
especially
Pa.C.S.A. 5930
§
appellant queried appellee
after counsel for
on the content of the oral
agreement.
(1961);
generally
P.L.E.
38
Trial
82
see
§
Warden v.
Moreland v.
137,
Zanella,
Metrovich,
147,
1026,
(1980);
283 Pa.
423 A.2d
1031
88,
2,
579,
Pa.Super.
772,
249
91 & n.
375 A.2d
773 & n. 2
Newkirk,
(1977);
(1977).
Brown v.
239 Ga.
317
The evidence at trial further disclosed that
the appel
into the
cared
premises,
lee moved
for the mother and for a
and a half incurred all the expenses attendant
to the
year
of the house.
his
upkeep
Despite
expenditure of time and
($8,520.00)
money
improve
to
the condition of
substantially
see
v.
Messinger
Washington Township,
premises,
185
554,
(1958),
318
Instead, conveyed property dollar, she Pauline for one son, Paul, who in turn transferred it to her for the same amount. Purcell, in v.
As was the case
Scott
supra, appellee here
made no
that Pauline and Paul
showing
se
“wrongfully
cured” the
but we
property
question,
find that he has
shown that
received a benefit that it
they “passively
would
Id.,
be unconscionable for
to retain.”
264 Pa.Super.
[them]
367,
generally Zlotziver v. 49 A.2d Sackett, (1946); Briggs (Second) Restatement of Contracts 197. *9 (Appellee’s a third against party. enforce the contract to OBJECTIONS,” Record PRELIMINARY TO “ANSWER Moore, Inc. v. 279 7); Crossgates Realty see No. conscience be a to good party we cannot in Consequently, (Pauline the party litigants which permits of action a course Restitution benefit, see Restatement of retain a Paul) & ., form ‘benefit,’ any . . denotes (“The word 1 Comment b § another, and at at the of expense secured advantage.”),* of will not result from the that injustice the same time say therefore, we affirm appellee; of restitution to denial the Order below.
No. IS Civil 1978 of the “stipulation” suit on the breach As for appellee’s court, Andrew asserts not to be bound into in open entered First, he since he filed a argues, two reasons. same for 1, 1979, in the on bankruptcy May voluntary petition the Western District of District Court for United States amount owed to in his and listed the Pennsylvania debts, the fact that all of his debts outstanding schedule of of said Court dated July were order “discharged by . . . terminates the action at No. Civil 1979[,] effectively Second, 5) Brief at because the con- 1978.” (Appellants’ having “done business “impartial,” tractor selected was many years prior appraisal,” with the [appellee] what work had been done” with and “was unable to describe his was “of no value testimony any degree particularity, Id. at 11. whatsoever.” averment, fact that given
In to the initial regard failed to raise such defense in his “EXCEPTIONS” Andrew (Record 24), Nos. 22 & it is waived. August filed on Frank, Custody In re
1229, 1232 (SPAETH, J.) (“When an action in assump- * Here, price piece of a dollar each received a Pauline and Paul $8,520.00. property improved the tune of Cf. Restate- that was (gratuitous transferee held accountable to a ment of Restitution property person in the title to the has a beneficial interest who receives). transferee
sit is tried
without a
who
judge sitting
jury,
party
*10
objects
judge’s
to the
decision must file
and
exceptions,
covered
‘[mjatters
by exceptions
are
deemed
1038(d).”);
waived....’
Pa.R.Civ.P.
see also
v.
Carnicelli
Bartram,
424,
Pa.Super.
(1981);
289
The second Andrew attacks the “impartial- of the contractor and his ity” alleged failure to recall in detail the made improvements by appellee four years trial, first, to the date of fares no better than the prior for it 1038(d). is likewise waived.6 Pa.R.C.P. argument
6. Even if we for assume the sake that such issue is not waived, unpersuasive. it is still A review of the record reveals that appellee the contractor knew the no more than aas “[c]ustomer 2/6/79, Also, coming (N.T. 26) although into store.” [his] knowing many years, contractor admitted the Zvonik name for he personally family any stated he “was not connected with the way.” Regarding allegation Id. at 28. that the contractor was done, unable “to describe what work had been what materials [were] used, type flooring covering [installed,]” (Appel- or wall [and] 11), example, lants’ Brief at the record indicates otherwise. For testify specific improvements contractor did as to what were made e., appellee, “[appellee] i. he stated: built a kitchen and put remodeled it. He in a half a bath. He built a foundation and the porch exterior work on a 30 12 foot addition. He built a with [sic] foundation, spouting the floors and the walls. He built new and painted upstairs built a coal bin. He three rooms and he remodeled a before this Court Although present appeal only mentioned, just on the two issues court below in its Opinion permit escape payment stated that Andrew “to light to the of the improvements property,” court, made in “would be “stipulation” open manifestly on to its unjust,” went elaborate reasons for believing addition, so. In both have appellants addressed the issue of the in their legitimacy “stipulation” briefs Accordingly, submitted this Court. it is appropriate the issue be discussed. Beneficial See Consumer Discount Hamlin, Co. v.
After
the
filed a criminal
An-
complaint against
drew, the
parties appeared
court and set forth a proposal
would
the
whereby appellee
drop
charges in
exchange
“
to,
alia,
Andrew
inter
the
‘fair
agreeing
pay
value’ of the
work done on
the
the
premises” by
appellee,
appraise-
the[ ]
ment of which would
an
be made
impartial contractor
counsel;
chosen
appellee’s
“[wjhatever
figure he
with
up
binding
be
both of
upon
the
c[a]me[]
[would]
(N.T. 2/25/74,
parties.”
2--3)
court,
at
The lower
after
bathroom, excluding
including
fixtures and
hot
the
water radiator.”
2/6/79,
(N.T.
28)
at
Albeit the contractor was
to
not able
recall “the brand names of
31,
anything,”
elapsed
years
id. at
this can be attributed to the four
that
between the time the estimate was made
and when he
Moreover,
response
appellant’s
testified at trial
coun-
query
exactly
sel’s
as to what
was installed in Anna Zvonik’s kitchen
$1839,”
“that was worth
the contractor remarked: “. . . I don’t
remember. I have been in the
for
I
kitchen business and have been in it
many years
kitchens,
get
and I
into
a half a
[—since
dozen
1968]
day
pick
testimony
a
and I cannot
this one out.” Id. at 30 -31. Such
credibility
generally
is not fatal to the
of the witness. See
American
Vending
Brewington, supra,
4,
Pa.Super.
v.Co.
289
at 31 & n.
432
A.2d at 1035 & n. 4.
Also,
preceding
credibility
since the
matters are concerned with the
witness,
traditionally
of the
of
which is
within the bailiwick of the trier
fact,
appellate
province
an
court is not to intrude into the
here,
judge,
trial
was unreasonable and
the arbiter of fact
absent evidence that the decision
unjustified. Wagner Wagner,
532,
v.
466 Pa.
(1976);
Appeals
322 heard, understood and consent- parties that the
ascertaining it. approved the “stipulation,” ed to sanction his attempt now have this Court Andrew would of on “stipulation,” out obligations arising eschew the of minds therein.” meeting was “no basis that there 6) agree.7 Brief at We do (Appellants’ with, which matter involves indi “[a]ny To start inter se parties may of rights obligations vidual between stipulation be made the subject properly Co., Casualty Maryland them.” Foote v. (1962); accord Kardibin Associated 255, A.2d 258
186 Hardware, 599, 649, (1981); 655 586, A.2d Pa.Super. sufficiently appraisal detailed inform find contractor’s 7. We cost, improvements which in made and their were Andrew what figure” parties’ compliance that intentions “[w]hatever with (N.T. binding up upon with be both. would contractor came Co., 2/25/74, 3); 59 Pa. v. E.J. Albrecht at see Commonwealth Odzer, & Son J.W. Goodliffe Cmwlth. Morris cf. Co. v. A.2d 283 Athas, (1972) (“The only evidence of A.2d testimony expert’s price equipment was an reasonable the fair $9,000.’ ‘approximately price to a for a sale consumer circumstances, figure larger than that should not such sum Under have been awarded modified.”). judgment should and the be proposal portion is cited below: contractor’s The relevant hereby specifications and estimates for: “We submit performed by George Appraised Mr. of labor and material value Street, City, Lynn Penna. 15926. Central Zvonik on house located Total Painting of including 30' x 12' floors, walls, Remodel New exterior [*] Enclosed porch complete Kitchen: V2 bath: spouting, labor [*] work, addition complete bathroom, hot water three and material ceilings: floors and built sic rooms radiator: excluding and walls: [*] upstairs: a coal with with fixtures, foundation, bin: foundation, and /s/ L. E. Zimmerman.” $ $8,520.00 $ 527.00 $ *12 $1,839.00 $ $3,545.00 $1,496.00 285.00 241.00 587.00 A) [Appellee’s] Exhibit (Plaintiffs
323 York, Pa. Co. of New 203 Ins. Preferred Accident Muir v. is law and 158, (it “the settled 338, 344, A. 160 53 whatever not affect the does Pennsylvania in practice of due of business and convenience or the order jurisdiction between the or arrangement parties of capable court counsel, by an them will become agreement their and case.”). includes oral made stipulations law This of the the trial court, imprimatur judge, which receive the of open though writing as reduced to and have the same effect thus Black, with Black v. 206 formality. complete executed 117-118, 847, (1903); 55 848 Bookwalter v. Pa. A. Ward, Bookwalter, (1921); 577 Canfield v. 13 75 1 Co.1980); 508 Williston on Contracts (Wayne Pa.D. C.3d& 1957); (Second) of Contracts (3d 204A Ed. Restatement § 94; 94; (Pa.Anno.) of of Contracts Restatement the Law § § of 253 University Pittsburgh, see Pa.Su also Cardamone Effectiveness (1978); 1233 Anno.: per. Its Attorneys, Notwithstanding of Parties or Stipulation 7 Form A.L.R.3d 1394 Violating Requirements. himself to the “fair pay
The fact that Andrew bound as determined performed by appellee, the work value” of contractor, is not inimical the validity independent an Brown, Pa. 243 In “stipulation”. Portnoy held, wheth (1968), deciding our Court Supreme A.2d due specific er agreement susceptible performance an that: price, to the lack of definitive purchase outset, should be noted that is an price “At it contract the transfer ingredient of every essential or sufficiently and must be definite and certain property being ascertained from the contract between capable Catholic Joseph’s Thomas v. St. Polish Nat. parties. Rocks, of McKees Church see, A. Kemmerer, Pa.
Butler v. Contracts, (1964), cases cited therein. Am.Jur.2d However, where a that the is to be specifies price contract value’ or value’ measured ‘fair market ‘reasonable involved, generally courts have property of the services *13 324 to have certain in order sufficiently price that the
held
Contracts,
Williston,
Vol.
See,
obligation.
an enforceable
Moreover, the
Am.Jur.2d, supra.
1957); 17
Ed.
1,
(3d
41 §
contracts
enforceability
area of
in the
recognizes
law
’ (that
reddi potest
eertum
maxim,
quod
certum est
‘id
certain).
Swope,
v.
Suchan
can be made
which
is certain
Manufacturing
Windsor
(1947)];
116
16, A.2d
Pa.
53
[357
466,
It be noted that Andrew does not aver should due the appellee. he was unable to the amount pay See Williston on Contracts 204A. This fact is well illustrated § exchange: by following
“[Appellee’s Counsel:] particularly, More has 8. one commentator stated: process negotiating agreement, “In the an a term that is most frequently agreement, left indefinite and to be settled future or method, specified price money—the compensa- some other is the tory subject exchange purchase. matter of This is true both agreements for the rendition of service and of those for the purchase goods. parties provide practicable, and sale If objective determining price compensation, method for this or themselves, leaving parties it to the future will of the there is no such uncertainty prevent agreement indefiniteness or as will from being they agree upon an enforceable contract. The same is true if price compensation.” payment of a ‘reasonable’ Corbin on Con- tracts at 146 this stipulation at the time Q was intention your What whatever this made; [appellee] to pay intend you did was? figure
[Andrew]: $8,000. it come to I would A Yeah, figure but didn’t cost. it Whatever
t- [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] pay, though? it intention to Q All right. your Was Yeah, paid. have A I would to be? that was determined Q Whatever amount A high. But not this *15 $8,000?
Q You didn’t expect any A Right. in fact this?
Q pay you Could have, way.” not this No A Well, high. I would but added) 2/6/79, 125-26) (Emphasis (N.T. it that Andrew is evident dialogue, the preceding
From agreement solely the terms of the abide by refused to was going in not the bill “figuring] remiss he was because no reason to vitiate at 129. This is to be $8500.” Id. in New Charter Coal aptly stated quite As agreement. (1963): 191 A.2d McKee, 411 Pa. v.Co. “ with anoth bargains man who every of The law demands reflection of the so after due only he should do er that misjudges and if he bargain of his consequences possible expected by could have been that consequences on the law to man, rely he cannot intelligent reasonably recognized some legally Absent his fecklessness. remedy the law contract one by party, of the law of infringement as to make a a written contract so reform will not make did not parties they contract be[t]ween who did party never to rescue themselves certainly of his consequences bargain.” foresee the reasonably not Terrace, v. Heller added) Cf. Durham Inc. (Emphasis 899, 904 394 Pa. 148 A.2d Authority, Borough town enrich unjust principle (“the quasi-contractual entered deliberately to an apply agreement ment does into by parties ‘however harsh provisions of such contracts may seem in light subsequent happenings.’ ”). has been Additionally, said that sui parties juris bind “[i]t contracts, themselves their lawful and courts cannot alter them because work a they The mere hardship. fact that the have made an parties improvident will bargain not lead a court to make implications unnatural or artificial interpreta- (Citation tions.” omitted) Shannon, Harnish v.
Thus, upon a thorough examination of record, we conclude that Andrew his own (by admission) intended to enter into and be bound agreement (“mutuality assent”) with the appellee. now, He should not after dis- covering that he underestimated the extent of his liability, permitted be his escape contractual obligation. “He cannot do this for the simple reason that he agreed had to do otherwise, and he must his keep He bargain. cannot play fast and loose court,” with the Bookwalter Bookwalter, supra, 75 Pa.Super. at by asking it at one stage of the litigation to be a to and party approve a “stipulation” nolle prossing filed charges against him and then turn around and ask the judiciary to sanction his breach of that same agreement. The courts should not be parties or condone such conduct. Moreover, inasmuch as Andrew failed to *16 prove the fraud, existence of any accident or mistake in to regard the making or execution of the agreement, see Buffington Buffington, 378 Pa. 106 A.2d 1 Williston 204A; on Contracts 35 P.L.E. Stipulations 8§ (1961); see also Berberich, Berberich v. 383 Pa. 352, 118 A.2d (1955), he should not be relieved of his obliga- tion to pay the amount due the appellee. aforesaid,
Based on the we affirm the Order of the lower court.
JOHNSON, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion. JOHNSON, Judge, concurring and dissenting: join I majority holding that Andrew Zvonik is liable Appellee to on the basis of the parties’ in-court agreement;
however, I must dissent Pauline and Paul Zvonik’s regarding Appellee. liability “Furthermore, states,
The
the most
majority
significant
a
for
on
contract
is that
requirement
recovery
quasi
”
unjust
enrichment to the defendant must be
. . . . The
it
proceed
explain
why
does not
how
would be
majority
(Pauline Zvonik)
or her
unjust
donee-beneficiary
son
gave
to retain the house that Anna Zvonik
to Pauline in
(Anna’s)
breach of her
contract with
Al-
alleged
George.
benefit,”
Pauline and Paul
received a
though
“passively
not
how or
“it would be uncon-
majority
explain
why
does
retain this benefit. Even though
scionable” for them to
unjust enrichment,
the result of
as the
courts focus on
asserts,
unjust,
enrichment is
and not in
majority
every
is passively
case where a benefit
received is it uncon-
every
to retain that benefit.
party
scionable for the
See Meehan
Township,
v. Cheltenham
189 A.2d
Meehan,
As the court stated in
which the
cites as
majority
unjust
authority
principles
enrichment:
mere fact that one
benefits from the act of
party
[T]he
another is not of itself sufficient to
restitution.
justify
There must also be an
injustice
permitting
benefit
retained
compensation.
be
without
Id.,
If clear that Zvonik does not have a cause of action George either Pauline or Paul Zvonik for the benefits that against he conferred Anna Zvonik to their (George) upon pursuant George oral contract. Anna that make alleged requested her as A the purchased ring the house from improvements in the Anna foregoing example. gave C subsequently promise George house to Pauline and breached her as A to B and defaulted in his to C. As C gave ring payments B, does not have a cause of action so does not against George a cause of either Pauline against have action or Paul. As it is not or unconscionable for B to unjust retain the benefit received, that she so it is not passively unconscionable for either Pauline or Paul to retain the benefits that they received. passively Purcell,
Although
majority
greatly
relies
upon Scott
(1979),
The fact that Oaklander Associates not on the may record be held to have known present of Purcell’s wrong- ful acts does not refute the basic point given that it was chance to buy property, because Purcell violated only his duties to as appellant appellant’s agent. *18 at 1095.
Id., at
Scott
Pa.Super.
Since
from the lower
refusal to
appeal
Purcell was on
court’s
nonsuit,
the
a
the decisions of both
Su-
compulsory
strike
Courts were based
Superior
upon
princi-
and the
preme
only
that a
should be sustained
if the plaintiff
nonsuit
ple
” Id.,
view of the
. . .
any
“cannot recover under
evidence.
Thus,
In and Tile 226 Pa.Super. Roman Mosaic Co. (1974), installed a new floor in a Appellant A.2d 305 Vollrath, laundromat Vollrath Investments. Paul owned in signed indicating capacity who the contract without acted, Appellant which he defaulted. filed one subsequently against action Paul Vollrath and and a corporation wife, Geraldine, Paul his who was against second action owner, an for enrichment. The Court unjust Superior also that, enriched, held Geraldine had been although Appellant she something could not relief from her unless did “secure misleading or otherwise connection with improper 307. A.2d at Id., 226 at contract.” contract, “doc- to the Because a party Geraldine was this be used circumvent trine of enrichment cannot unjust be sued noncontracting party cannot principle (viz., that for or debtor breach) promisor one merely by substituting 218, 313 Id., 226 (citations omitted). another” A.2d at 307. case,
In the has not either instant record revealed that or misleading regard- Pauline Paul did anything improper contract with chose not to ing George. mother’s George 7, 2/6/79). Anna Zvonik’sestate against (N.T. claim pursue Pauline or Paul therefore, either substitute cannot, George promise breached her who Anna Zvonik place George. the lower reasons, I would reverse foregoing
For the affirm the order in in No. 12 Civil order court’s No. 13 Civil 1978. *19 and Hilda Coren B. COREN
Isadore Aurelio Nardoni and Matthew J. DiDOMENICO Matthew, Inc. John and Aurelio Nardoni. Appeal Matthew DiDOMENICO Pennsylvania. Superior Court Dec. 1980. Submitted Filed Oct. 1981.