Lexplug logoLexplug

Jackson v. Richard's 5 & 10, Inc.

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
433 A.2d 888 (1981)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Courts, exercising their equitable powers, will not enforce a harsh forfeiture clause for the breach of an express condition if the condition is not a material part of the agreed-upon exchange and its non-occurrence is trivial in comparison to the penalty of forfeiture.


Facts:

  • On December 30, 1974, Jackson, a store manager, entered an oral agreement with his employer, Richard’s 5 & 10, Inc. (REO), to purchase two of its stores.
  • Beginning January 1, 1975, Jackson took control of the stores and operated them as the owner, and in reliance on the sale, he purchased the building housing one of the stores.
  • A subsequent written agreement failed after Jackson failed to appear for settlement and his down payment check was returned for non-sufficient funds.
  • On February 28, 1975, the parties signed a new agreement requiring Jackson to provide, by March 3, 1975, evidence that certain debts were paid and that he had applied for an SBA loan.
  • As security for this agreement, Jackson provided a deed to his house, which REO could record in the event of a default.
  • Jackson failed to provide the required evidence of debt payment and the loan application by the March 3 deadline.
  • On March 21, 1975, REO seized the two stores, sold some merchandise, and recorded the deed to Jackson's house.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jackson filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), seeking to enjoin REO from transferring his home.
  • The trial court granted a preliminary injunction on April 28, 1975.
  • After a trial, the court issued a decree nisi that dissolved the injunction, denied Jackson's requested relief, and awarded $10,000 in damages to REO.
  • The trial court later dismissed Jackson's exceptions and entered a final order in favor of REO.
  • Jackson, as appellant, appealed the final order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania; REO is the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party's failure to comply with express conditions precedent that are not material to the contract's primary purpose justify the other party's enforcement of a harsh forfeiture clause?


Opinions:

Majority - Cercone, President Judge

No. A party's failure to comply with express conditions that are not a material part of the agreed exchange does not justify the enforcement of an extreme forfeiture. The court first reversed the trial court's award of damages to REO because REO failed to properly plead a counterclaim or move to amend its pleadings, as required by procedural rules. On the central issue of the forfeiture, the court reasoned that equity abhors a forfeiture, and such clauses must be strictly construed. While Jackson did technically breach the express conditions by failing to provide evidence of paying bills and applying for a loan, these conditions were not material to the primary purpose of the contract, which was the sale of the businesses for $60,000. The court found the breaches to be trivial in comparison to the harsh penalty of forfeiting a house. Citing the principles from Jacob & Youngs v. Kent and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the court held that it can excuse the non-occurrence of an express condition to avoid an extreme and unjust forfeiture, especially when the condition bears no substantial relationship to the subject matter of the exchange. Enforcing the forfeiture here would constitute a 'clear injustice.'



Analysis:

This case illustrates the judicial power to prevent inequitable outcomes despite the clear language of a contract. It affirms the principle that equity can override strict contractual enforcement, particularly concerning forfeiture clauses. The decision is significant for extending the concept of materiality from the doctrine of substantial performance (traditionally for constructive conditions) to the analysis of express conditions when a disproportionate forfeiture is at stake. This aligns with the modern trend in contract law, reflected in the Restatement (Second), which favors avoiding harsh penalties for non-material breaches, thereby promoting fairness over rigid formalism.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Jackson v. Richard's 5 & 10, Inc. (1981) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Jackson v. Richard's 5 & 10, Inc.