Legal Opinion

Biggins v. Shore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 19, 1989No. 118 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1988PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice *.

This case requires us to reconsider our long-standing adherence to section 142 of the Restatement of Contracts, which makes a contractual gift to a donee beneficiary irrevocable upon execution of the contract, in contrast with section 311 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which permits revocation of the gift at any time before the donee manifests reliance or acceptance. We hold that abandonment of Restatement § 142 would work an injustice on the parties in this case, and that there is no need to adopt Restatement (Second)…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Blymire v. BoistleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
  3. Brill v. BrillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Logan v. GlassSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Cohen v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. West End Tenants Ass'n v. George Washington UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. First Home Savings Bank, FSB v. NernbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Pereira v. CoganDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
  4. Re: Trust Under Deed of D. Kulig Apl of Budke, C.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. Philadelphia Housing Authority v. BarbourSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

5 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