Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
742 A.2d 643 (1999)
Rodger Lindh (plaintiff) had an erratic relationship with Janis Surman (defendant). Lindh initially proposed to Surman and gave her an expensive engagement ring, only to break up with her two months later. At Lindh’s request, Surman gave back the ring. The couple later conciliated and Lindh again proffered the ring in proposal. Once more, Lindh rescinded his offer of marriage and asked Surman to hand back the ring. This time, Surman declined. Lindh brought suit against Surman to recover the ring or its value. Surman was awarded the ring through arbitration. Lindh appealed the arbitration award to the county court and won judgment for the value of the ring. Surman appealed, and the appellate court upheld the judgment in favor of Lindh. Surman petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
Dissent (Cappy, J.)
Dissent (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 241,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.