Lancellotti v. Thomas
491 A.2d 117 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who breaches a contract is entitled to restitution for any benefit conferred on the non-breaching party by way of part performance or reliance in excess of the loss caused by the breach.
Facts:
- On July 25, 1973, appellant agreed to purchase appellees' luncheonette business, including its name, goodwill, and equipment, for $25,000.
- As part of the consideration, appellant also promised to build an addition to the business premises, at a minimum cost of $15,000, by May 1, 1974.
- On the same day, the parties executed a five-year lease for the premises, which made the construction of the addition a condition of the lease.
- An addendum executed on August 14, 1973, stipulated that if the addition was not built, appellant would owe $6,665 in rent for the 1973 summer season and the business equipment would revert to appellees.
- Appellant paid the $25,000 and operated the business for the 1973 season.
- A dispute arose regarding the construction of the addition; appellant claimed a building permit was denied, while appellees claimed they obtained the permit but appellant refused to build.
- Appellees ultimately constructed a larger addition themselves for approximately $11,000.
- In the spring of 1974, appellees discovered appellant was no longer interested in operating the business and they resumed possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant (buyer) filed a complaint in assumpsit in the trial court to recover his $25,000 payment.
- Appellees (sellers) filed a counterclaim seeking $52,000 in damages, including $6,665 in unpaid rent.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered a verdict against appellant on his claim, allowing appellees to retain the $25,000.
- The trial court also found in favor of appellees on their counterclaim, awarding them $6,665 for rent.
- Appellant appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 who defaults on a contract have a right to recover payments made to the non-breaching party prior to the default, to the extent that those payments exceed the non-breaching party's actual damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Spaeth, President Judge
Yes. A party who breaches a contract is entitled to recover any benefit conferred upon the non-breaching party that is in excess of the loss caused by the breach. The court rejects the common law rule that allows a non-breaching seller to retain all payments made by a defaulting buyer, as this rule creates a forfeiture and unjustly enriches the seller. Instead, the court adopts the more enlightened approach of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 374, which prioritizes restitution over forfeiture. This modern trend, reflected in the Uniform Commercial Code and the law of many other jurisdictions, recognizes that contract law is not meant to be punitive. Therefore, the case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the benefit appellees received ($25,000) and subtract the actual losses they sustained from appellant's breach to determine the amount of restitution owed.
Dissenting - Tamilia, Judge
No. A party who breaches a contract is not entitled to recover payments made prior to the breach. The majority is improperly adopting a new rule for Pennsylvania without any supporting state authority, thereby usurping the role of the state Supreme Court. The established law in Pennsylvania is that a breaching party cannot recover. Furthermore, the majority ignores the trial judge's credibility findings, which favored the appellees, and rewards the appellant's bad faith conduct. Allowing restitution would provide an unmerited reward for what amounts to sharp practice, which is inconsistent with law and equity.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Pennsylvania contract law by formally abandoning the traditional common law rule of forfeiture for breaching parties. By adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 374, the court aligns Pennsylvania with the modern trend favoring restitution to prevent the unjust enrichment of the non-breaching party. The ruling establishes that contract remedies are compensatory, not punitive, meaning the non-breaching party is only entitled to be made whole for their actual losses. This precedent requires lower courts in similar cases to engage in a damage calculation rather than allowing an automatic forfeiture of all prior payments.
Unlock the full brief for Lancellotti v. Thomas