Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesliability
contractplaintiffdefendantliabilityverdictlease

Related Cases

Roth v. Speck, 126 A.2d 153, 61 A.L.R.2d 1004
View Case »
Vickers v. Wichita State University, Wichita, 213 Kan. 614, 518 P.2d 512
View Case »
Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers, 348 S.W.3d 729, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,640
View Case »
ATS-1 Corp. v. Rodriguez, 156 A.D.3d 674, 67 N.Y.S.3d 60, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 08651
View Case »
Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice, 934 P.2d 1313, 12 IER Cases 1261
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stelmack v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 339 Pa. 410, 14 A.2d 127

Facts

The plaintiffs purchased a property in Scranton in 1922, which was subject to mineral rights reservations that excluded liability for damage caused by mining. In 1927, they were informed by an agent of the defendant that mining would commence under their property, leading to an alleged oral agreement for repairs in exchange for allowing the defendant to prop up their building. Although some repairs were made, the defendant later refused to restore the property fully, prompting the plaintiffs to seek damages for the costs incurred.

The deed to them incorporated by reference, and was made subject to, certain reservations, conditions and releases respecting the mineral rights in the land, which appeared in prior conveyances in the chain of title of the property.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the alleged oral contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was supported by consideration.

The sole question is whether the contract is supported by a consideration.

Rule

Consideration is defined as a benefit to the party promising, or a loss or detriment to the party to whom the promise is made, and must be bargained for as the exchange for the promise.

That consideration is an essential element of an enforceable contract is one of our fundamental legal concepts, and there are but few exceptions to the rule.

Analysis

The court determined that the defendant's offer to repair the plaintiffs' building was gratuitous, as the permission to enter the land and erect supports was solely for the benefit of the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant had no liability for damages under the deed's provisions, and thus, the actions taken did not constitute consideration for a binding contract.

The placing of supports about the structure was of no conceivable advantage to the defendant, for, as we have seen, it had no liability whatever ‘for any injury or damage that may be caused or done to the said surface or right of soil, or to the buildings or improvements' under the provisions of the deeds in plaintiffs' chain of title.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, concluding that the plaintiffs' claims were unenforceable due to the lack of consideration for the alleged oral agreement.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Who won?

The Glen Alden Coal Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the alleged oral agreement was not supported by consideration, rendering it unenforceable.

The court below excluded all evidence of the oral agreement, upon the ground that plaintiffs had failed to show that it was supported by a consideration, and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.

You must be