Moscatiello v. Pittsburgh Contractors Equipment Co.

Franco Moscatiello (plaintiff) was awarded a contract by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn-Dot) to pave a road. Penn-Dot specified that a paving machine manufactured by Curbmaster, Inc. (Curbmaster) (defendant) would be acceptable for the work. Moscatiello agreed to purchase a Curbmaster paver from Pittsburgh Contractors Equipment Co. (PCEC) (defendant) for $85,125.42. Around May 19, 1987, the parties executed a form contract provided by PCEC for the purchase of the Curbmaster paver. The reverse side of the form contract stated in fine print that no warranties were offered and that any implied warranties were specifically excluded. The form contract also limited Moscatiello’s remedies to the return of the purchase price and specifically excluded all consequential and incidental damages. At no point did PCEC inform Moscatiello of or direct Moscatiello to these terms in the contract. Curbmaster delivered a paver to Moscatiello on June 15, 1987. Curbmaster also excluded warranties, but at no point informed Moscatiello. Upon beginning work, it became clear that the paver could not lay concrete evenly. PCEC attempted to repair the machine several times over the course of Moscatiello’s project. Penn-Dot was dissatisfied with the concrete laid by the Curbmaster and Moscatiello incurred additional labor costs in order to produce a satisfactory product. Moscatiello subsequently filed suit against PCEC alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. PCEC joined Curbmaster as a defendant. The trial court ruled in favor of Moscatiello, awarding him $146,811.43 in damages against PCEC and Curbmaster.