Legal Opinion · Dissent

Topp Copy Products, Inc. v. Singletary

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 26, 1993No. 6 M.D. Appeal Docket 1992Published

1DissentMontemuro, Justice

Because I cannot fathom how the words “any and all liability” can be determined to be words of general import in one case, and words of precision in another, I dissent.

As the majority correctly notes, an exculpatory clause will be valid where three conditions are satisfied: (1) the clause does not violate any public policy; (2) the contract relates entirely to the private affairs of the parties; and (3) the contract is not a contract of adhesion to which one party simply adheres to a contract because he has no power to alter it. Kotwasinski v. Rasner, 436 Pa. 32, 258 A.2d at 865 (1969). Even…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  2. Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  3. Dilks v. Flohr ChevroletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API