Legal Opinion
Lancellotti v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 22, 1985No. 2377PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, President Judge:
This appeal raises the question of whether a defaulting purchaser of a business who has also entered into a related lease for the property can recover any part of his payments made prior to default. The common law rule precluded a breaching buyer from recovering these payments. Today, we reject this rule, which created a forfeiture of the breaching buyer’s payments and unjustly enriched the nonbreaching seller, and adopt § 374 of the Restatement (Second) Contracts (1979), which permits limited restitution. This case is remanded for further proceedings so that the trial…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Nordin Construction Company v. City of NomeAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
- Quillen v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Honey v. Henry's Franchise Leasing Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Hartford Elevator, Inc. v. LauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Sevast v. KakourasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Leslie Fay Companies v. Corporate Property Associates 3 (In Re Leslie Fay Companies)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Rooster, Inc. v. Raphael Roy, S.R.L. (In Re Rooster, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Nikole, Inc. v. KlingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Ducolon Mechanical, Inc. v. Shinstine/Forness, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.