With an OverDrive account, you can save your favorite libraries
for at-a-glance information about availability. Find out more
about OverDrive accounts.
Expanding the influence and authority of the venerable Corbin brand, Corbin on Pennsylvania Contracts provides a comprehensive and accurate statement of Pennsylvania contract law in a readily accessible manner. Lawyers sometimes assume that contract law principles are uniform throughout the nation, but that's not true. Pennsylvania has a unique take on contract law—with holdings and rules of law that depart from the mainstream in significant respects. The only way to understand it is to carefully examine the judicial holdings applying Pennsylvania law. Corbin on Pennsylvania Contracts provides a comprehensive and accurate statement of Pennsylvania contract law in a readily accessible manner. It also demonstrates how Pennsylvania law differs from the majority or other prominent positions.
Important features of Pennsylvania contract law that the treatise explores in depth include the following topics:
Pennsylvania is the only state to enact the so-called Uniform Written Obligations Act, a substitute for consideration. Yet that act is not always recognized as a substitute for consideration—when it comes to restrictive covenants, Pennsylvania still requires a bargained for exchange.
Pennsylvania adheres to a minority position in refusing to consider most evidence of fraud to invalidate a contract—only fraud in the execution, a rare kind of fraud, can overcome the parol evidence rule in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has a unique take on the statute of frauds. It is just one of two states to eschew the much-unloved "one year" provision of the statute, and it is the only state that has never adopted either legislatively or judicially the requirement of a writing in consideration of marriage.
Pennsylvania's attempt to honor both historical precedent and modernity led it to promulgate a test for third-party beneficiaries that is complicated and not always coherent.
Pennsylvania is in the decided minority when it comes to the "lost volume seller" rule; on the vesting of donee beneficiary rights; in holding that the "mailbox rule" is applicable to option contracts; and in adhering to the so-called English rule to measure damages for breaches of contracts to sell land.
Pennsylvania's adherence to a strict "four corners" approach to contract interpretation and construction, and the fact that it has not fully embraced agreements to negotiate in good faith, puts it at odds with more progressive states.
Courts sitting in Pennsylvania are divided even among themselves as to whether account stated is a valid cause of action to recover consumer credit card debt.