Stelmack v. Glen Alden Coal Co.
14 A.2d 127 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
Facts
In 1922, plaintiffs purchased a property in Scranton with a building, subject to deed reservations waiving surface support rights and liability for mining damage, with reduced consideration reflecting this. The defendant, owner of mineral rights, conducted mining operations. In 1927, defendant's agent allegedly orally agreed that if plaintiffs allowed entry to prop up their building to prevent collapse, the company would make all necessary repairs. Plaintiffs permitted entry, and supports were erected, causing the building to become unsightly and resulting in some rent loss. Mining continued, causing further subsidence, and while defendant made some repairs, it later refused to fully restore the property.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs initiated an action of assumpsit to recover repair costs. The court below excluded evidence of the oral agreement, finding no consideration, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The court in banc refused a new trial and entered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed.
Issue
The sole legal question is whether the oral agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, concerning repairs to the plaintiffs' building, was supported by valid consideration.
Holding
The court held that the oral agreement was not supported by consideration and was therefore unenforceable. The judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendant was affirmed.
Rule
Consideration is an essential element of an enforceable contract, defined as a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. However, the detriment must be the "quid pro quo" or "price" of the promise, meaning it must be bargained for as the exchange for the promise, not merely a condition for a gratuitous benefit. The court distinguished between a bargained-for exchange and a conditional gift, where the promisor intends to confer a benefit without seeking the condition as payment. Moral consideration applies only where there was a pre-existing legal or equitable obligation that became inoperative. Promissory estoppel requires action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character by the promisee in reliance, resulting in injustice if the promise is not enforced, and the promisee must have altered their position adversely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.