Pinnacle Energy, L.L.C. v. Price

Catherine Price and Otis Price (defendants) agreed by contract to buy five windows and three doors to be installed by Pinnacle Energy, L.L.C. (Pinnacle) (plaintiff). However, on the day of delivery, the Prices refused to allow Pinnacle to install the doors and windows. Consequently, Pinnacle sued the Prices for breach of contract. At trial, the Prices argued that they had tried to reach Pinnacle numerous times prior to delivery to inform Pinnacle of their desire to cancel the agreement. In addition, the Prices claimed that the contract was not enforceable because it violated provisions of the Delaware Home Solicitation Sales Act (Act), 6 Del. C. §§ 4401-05. Pinnacle countered that it had never received notice from the Prices of their intent to cancel the contract. Pinnacle also claimed that the contract complied with the Act. Pinnacle asserted that by having a clause in bold print at the bottom of the contract informing buyers of their right to cancel, and by having a notice-of-cancellation form attached to the contract, the provisions of the Act were satisfied. However, Pinnacle was unable to produce a copy of the cancellation form that was signed by the Prices. Accordingly, the Prices moved for a directed verdict. The trial court concluded that the contract did not comply with § 4404(1) because the contract did not specify in a conspicuous ink color how a buyer could cancel the contract. The trial court then considered the appropriate remedy based on Pinnacle’s failure to comply with the cancellation-related requirement.