Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hart v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2022Under the doctrine of frustration of purpose, “[w]hen people enter into a contract which is dependent for the possibility of its performance on the continual availability of a specific thing, and that availability comes to an end by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the parties, the contract is ____________________________________________ 4 A force majeure clause is a “contractual provision allocating the risk of loss if performance becomes impossible or impracticable, esp. as a result of an event or effect that the parties could not have anticipated or controlled.” Black’s Law Dic 2022Under the doctrine of frustration of purpose, “[w]hen people enter into a contract which is dependent for the possibility of its performance on the continual availability of a specific thing, and that availability comes to an end by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the parties, the contract is ____________________________________________ 4 A force majeure clause is a “contractual provision allocating the risk of loss if performance becomes impossible or impracticable, esp. as a result of an event or effect that the parties could not have anticipated or controlled.” Black’s Law Dic | 2 | 2 |
McCamey v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2009“The frustration of purpose doctrine provides that a refusal under section 1547 can be implied from the conduct of the licensee which obstructs or frustrates the administration of the chemical test.” McCamey v. Commonwealth, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 292 , 601 A.2d 471, 472, n. 2 (1991). 2009“The frustration of purpose doctrine provides that a refusal under section 1547 can be implied from the conduct of the licensee which obstructs or frustrates the administration of the chemical test.” McCamey v. Commonwealth, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 292 , 601 A.2d 471, 472, n. 2 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Dorn v. Stanhope Steel, Inc.green2 sentences2022Darn v. Stanhope Steel, Inc., 534 A.2d 798, 812 (Pa. Super. 1987). 2022Darn v. Stanhope Steel, Inc., 534 A.2d 798 , 812 (Pa. Super. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Pa. v. Liedgreen2 sentences2016Step Plan Services, Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d at 413 , citing American Bank and Trust Co. of Pennsylvania v. Lied, 487 Pa. 333, 339 , 409 A.2d 377, 380 (1979). 2016Step Plan Services, Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d at 413 , citing American Bank and Trust Co. of Pennsylvania v. Lied, 487 Pa. 333, 339 , 409 A.2d 377, 380 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Lenzi v. Hahnemann Universitygreen2 sentences2007See Lenzi v. Hahnemann Univ., 445 Pa.Super. 187 , 664 A.2d 1375, 1379 (1995) (“If a written contract is unambiguous and held to express the embodiment of all negotiations and agreements prior to its execution, neither oral testimony nor prior written agreements or other writings are admissible to explain or vary the terms of that contract.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 17 As a corollary to its second question, Kirby argues that the Settlement Agreement is no longer enforceable under the doctrine of frustration of purpose. 2007See Lenzi v. Hahnemann Univ., 445 Pa.Super. 187 , 664 A.2d 1375, 1379 (1995) (“If a written contract is unambiguous and held to express the embodiment of all negotiations and agreements prior to its execution, neither oral testimony nor prior written agreements or other writings are admissible to explain or vary the terms of that contract.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 17 As a corollary to its second question, Kirby argues that the Settlement Agreement is no longer enforceable under the doctrine of frustration of purpose. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Step Plan Services, Inc. v. Koresko
green
2 sentences2022This is not the “substantial” frustration, discussed in Step, supra, that allows for the application of the doctrine of frustration of purpose. - 12 - J-A06009-22 Rather, Appellants experienced a situation where it was “less profitable” for Appellants to operate their business, which is an insufficient basis for invoking the doctrine. 2022This is not the “substantial” frustration, discussed in Step, supra, that allows for the application of the doctrine of frustration of purpose. - 12 - J-A06009-22 Rather, Appellants experienced a situation where it was “less profitable” for Appellants to operate their business, which is an insufficient basis for invoking the doctrine. | 2 | 2016–2022 |
Commonwealth v. Mumma
green
1 sentence1991Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Mumma, 79 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 108, 468 A.2d 891 (1983). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
407 East 61st Garage, Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Avenue Corp.
green
2 sentences1980The Court en banc cited 6 Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., 1960, and 407 East Sixty-first Street Garage, Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Avenue Corporation, 23 N.Y.2d 275 , 296 N.Y.S.2d 338 , 244 N.E.2d 37 (1968) for the proposition that where difficulty of performance is occasioned only by financial difficulty, performance of a contract should not be excused through the frustration of purpose doctrine. 1980The Court en banc cited 6 Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., 1960, and 407 East Sixty-first Street Garage, Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Avenue Corporation, 23 N.Y.2d 275 , 296 N.Y.S.2d 338 , 244 N.E.2d 37 (1968) for the proposition that where difficulty of performance is occasioned only by financial difficulty, performance of a contract should not be excused through the frustration of purpose doctrine. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.