January 18th, 2023 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Needville Little League v. Little League Baseball, Inc., Pa. No. 21-00801 (C.P. Lycoming December 28, 2022) (Linhardt, J.)  The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pied their claim for breach of contract to survive demurrer. Plaintiffs pointed out specific language in rules , regulations and procedures promulgated by Defendant that states that in the event of a positive COVI D-19 test, Defendant would "work efficiently to communicate with the appropriate family members, team contacts, and state health officials, to initiate all appropriate quarantine, isolation, and contact tracing procedures," removing teams if they "cannot field nine players .... " Plaintiffs aver that they spent money and altered their behavior in reliance on this representation, and that had they known it would be changed hours before their arrival at the regional tournament to a policy of blanket disqualification they would not have acted as they did. Plaintiffs also averred that based on materials Defendant issued, they relied on Defendant to prevent regional and local officials from imposing non-uniform standards across the various regional tournaments, but that Defendant allowed exactly that sort of variation to Plaintiffs' detriment. It is clear that Defendant retained…


November 22nd, 2022 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Toppy v. Passage Bio, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 446 (November 9, 2022) (Stabile, J.)  In this employment dispute, Appellant, Eric Toppy, filed a five-count complaint against Appellee, Passage Bio, Inc., alleging that Appellee breached a settlement agreement that resolved Appellant’s wrongful termination claims against Appellee.  Appellee filed preliminary objections in the nature of demurrers asserting, inter alia, that the parties never entered a binding settlement agreement.  The trial court sustained Appellee’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  Appellant appeals from the order of dismissal.  We affirm in part and reverse in part.  We reverse the dismissal of Appellant’s claims for breach of the settlement agreement and violation of the Wage Payment Collection Law (“WPCL”).  43 P.S. 260.1-260.13.  We affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.


July 25th, 2022 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Needville Little League v. Little League Baseball, Pa. Civil No. 21-00801 (C.P. Lycoming January 4, 2022) (Linhardt, J.)  Plaintiffs claimed breach of contract resulting in plaintiff’s wrongful exclusion from the Little League World Series and causing them damages.  The court found that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend because they did not attach sufficient materials to their complaint to show what the contract was that was breached.  The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pied the existence of a contract: the Charter as amended by the COVID-19 protocols. Plaintiffs essentially alleged that the Charter is an agreement between the parties, pursuant to which Plaintiffs paid registration fees and agreed to abide by Defendant's rules and regulations, and Defendant agreed to conduct a nationwide tournament in accordance to certain procedures.  The Court will not grant a demurrer on the basis of failure to plead the existence of a contract or the contention that the COVID-19 protocols were not part of a contract between the parties as a matter of law. Defendant has pointed to a provision of the COVID-19 protocols reproduced in Plaintiffs' Complaint that states Defendant "will work efficiently to communicate…


July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

CONTRACT-QUANTUM MERUIT Artisan Builders, Inc. v. So Young Jang, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 97 (February 28, 2022) (Stabile, J).  This is a contract renovation dispute.  To put ABI's issues in context, we first address the difference between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. In Angino & Rovner v. Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, 2016 PA Super 2, 131 A.3d 502 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court explained that "[q]uantum meruit is an equitable remedy, which is defined as 'as much as deserved' and measures compensation under an implied contract to pay compensation as reasonable value of services rendered." Id. at 508 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and alteration omitted). See also Commonwealth Dept. of Public Welfare v. UEC, Inc., 483 Pa. 503, 397 A.2d 779, 782 (Pa. 1979) (quantum meruit is "the reasonable value of the services performed"). While the remedy of quantum meruit provides for restitution based on the reasonable value of services performed or provided, unjust enrichment "requires the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the value of the benefit conferred." Durst v. Milroy General Contracting, Inc., 2012 PA Super 179, 52 A.3d 357, 360 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). The…

Fair Credit Billing Act – Billing Errors

June 4th, 2018 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Krieger v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 17-1275 (3d Cir. May 16, 2018) Krause, C.J.  The same day Appellant William Krieger fell victim to a credit card scam and discovered a fraudulent $657 charge on his bill, he protested to his card issuer, Bank of America (BANA), 1 and was told both that the charge would be removed and that, pending “additional information,” BANA considered the matter resolved. And indeed, Krieger’s next bill reflected a $657 credit. But over a month later Krieger opened his mail to some particularly unwelcome additional information: BANA was rebilling him for the charge. He disputed it again, this time in writing, but after BANA replied that nothing would be done, he paid his monthly statement and then filed this action, alleging BANA violated two consumer protection laws: the Fair Credit Billing Act, which requires a creditor to take certain steps to correct billing errors, and the unauthorized-use provision of the Truth in Lending Act, which limits a credit cardholder’s liability for the unauthorized use of a credit card to $50. The District Court granted BANA’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint after determining Krieger…

Contracts: Exculpatory Provision Clause

May 15th, 2018 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Vinson v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 430 (May 4, 2018), McLaughlin, J. The crux of both of Vinson's issues lies in her contention that the Exculpatory Clause is invalid because it contravenes public policy. Vinson specifically asserts that her claim involves a vital matter of public health and safety. She argues that her cause of action involves the maintenance of facilities, which concerns the obvious health and safety of members of the public. To this end, she relies upon Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc., 252 Pa. Super. 162, 381 A.2d 164 (Pa.Super. 1977) (vacating grant of judgment on pleadings where plaintiffs had pleaded that exculpatory [*7]  provision in spa contract was unconscionable). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that HN3 exculpatory provisions in contracts are valid where three conditions are met: "First, the clause must not contravene public policy. Secondly, the contract must be between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs and thirdly, each party must be a free bargaining agent to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion." [*9]  Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2…