Scholl v. Hartzell
Unspecified Reporter Information (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer cannot maintain an action in replevin to enforce an unexecuted contract for the sale of goods unless the buyer has an immediate and exclusive right to possession. Under the Uniform Commercial Code §2-716, a right of replevin exists only if the goods are identified to the contract and the buyer is unable to effect cover after a reasonable effort, or the goods are unique.
Facts:
- On April 3, 1981, defendant placed a newspaper advertisement for the sale of a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette and parts for $4,000.
- On that same day, plaintiff inspected the automobile, and the parties entered into an agreement of sale.
- Plaintiff gave defendant a $100 deposit, and defendant provided a receipt showing the deposit and the $3,900 balance due upon pickup of the vehicle.
- Later on April 3, plaintiff informed defendant that he had obtained a bank money order for the remaining balance.
- On April 5, 1981, defendant telephoned plaintiff and stated he would not accept the tender of the balance and was backing out of the sale.
- Defendant returned plaintiff's $100 deposit and has continued to refuse to complete the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in replevin against defendant in the trial court (Court of Common Pleas).
- Defendant filed preliminary objections to the complaint in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim for replevin.
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 buyer who has paid a deposit on an agreement for the sale of an automobile, but has not yet paid the full purchase price or taken title, have a right to immediate and exclusive possession sufficient to maintain an action in replevin against the seller who refuses to complete the sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Grifo, J.
No. A buyer who has merely paid a deposit on an unexecuted contract of sale does not acquire the immediate and exclusive right to possession necessary to sustain an action in replevin. Replevin lies only where the claimant has such a right, and an executory contract, where performance is still due from both parties, does not confer it. The court reasoned that allowing replevin here would be an improper attempt to achieve specific performance, an equitable remedy reserved for situations where no adequate remedy at law (like monetary damages) exists. The court analyzed the buyer's remedies under the Uniform Commercial Code, 13 Pa.C.S.A. §2716, which permits replevin only if the goods are identified to the contract and the buyer is unable to 'effect cover' (find a substitute) or the goods are 'unique.' While a 1962 Corvette may be a collector's item, the court did not find it 'unique' in the legal sense, and more importantly, the plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint that he was unable to effect cover. Therefore, the proper cause of action is in assumpsit (breach of contract for damages), not replevin.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow scope of the replevin remedy in the context of sales contracts governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. It reinforces the principle that replevin is an action for possession, not a tool to compel performance of a still-executory contract. The case underscores that the law's preferred remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of goods is monetary damages, which allows the buyer to 'cover' by purchasing substitute goods on the open market. Litigants seeking the extraordinary remedies of replevin or specific performance must meet a high burden of proof by specifically pleading and proving either that the goods are truly unique or that cover is factually impossible, a failure which was fatal to the plaintiff's claim here.
