Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Moscatiello v. Pittsburgh Contractors Equipment Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
595 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)


Facts

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.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Hester, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 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.