Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/automatic-renewal-in-pa-enforced-may-20-2015
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:55:12+00:00

Document:
Interesting case was just decided in PA state court [REZRO, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN ATM v. MAXIMO LANFRANCO d/b/a MAXI GROCERY, ET AL] concerning an automatic renewal provision. The agreement was not for security; it was a lease of an ATM machine in a commercial premises. The lease was for 48 months and renewed for 48 months unless terminated. No termination notice was given, the lease renewed, and the subscriber breached by having another company install an ATM and demanding that the first company pick up its equipment.
The agreement was in English; the sale took place in Spanish and the customer could not read in English. The trial court found that the customer was nevertheless bound by the contract, that the contract by its terms renewed, that the customer breached, that the contract formula for damages would be enforced and granted judgment for that amount, approximately $50,000. The court noted that the plaintiff had legal fees of $18,000, but did not award any legal fees.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging breach of contract with regards to an agreement titled "ATM Floor Space Lease" ("Agreement") to place Plaintiff's ATM machine in Defendant's grocery store located at 6224 Lebanon Avenue in Philadelphia. Christopher Mirzai ("Mr. Mizrai") is Plaintiff's authorized representative and came to Defendant's store on January 2, 2009 to enter into the Agreement. The Agreement is written in English but the discussion between Mr. Mizrai and Defendant took place in Spanish. The Agreement is a one-page, one-sided document consisting of fourteen (14) numbered provisions, all written in the same sized font. The Agreement was signed by both parties and commenced on January 2, 2009 with an initial term of 48 months. Under Paragraph IV (A) and (B), a new lease term of 48 months would commence if no written notice or termination was provided 120 days prior to the termination of the initial term ("Renewal Provision"). Further, Paragraph XIII (C) required Defendant to pay Plaintiff attorneys' fees for seeking relief from any loss arising from a breach by Defendant ("Attorneys' Fee Provision"). The Agreement also contained a "No-Competition" provision wherein Defendant agreed not to place or operate another ATM or cash back device in the store throughout the term of the Agreement ("No-Competition Provision"). Defendant was paid fifty ($0.50) cents per valid chargeable transaction collected by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not receive written notice of termination during the initial term. The Agreement therefore automatically renewed for another 48 month period starting January 2, 2013. However, in July 2013, Defendant unplugged Plaintiff's ATM and placed another company's ATM in the store.
The matter proceeded to a Non-Jury Trial before Judge Di Vito on November 17, 2014. Defendant was provided with a Spanish-speaking interpreter. Following trial, Judge Di Vito entered Findings and Conclusions, explaining his reasonsfor finding in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and assessing damages of $50,148.50. Judge Di Vito found Plaintiff incurred attorneys' fees in the amount of $18,762.00 but did not award these fees. Judge Di Vito's Findings and Conclusions are attached hereto and incorporated herein. Defendant filed Post-Trial Motions, which were denied. This appeal followed. Defendant's 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal raises eleven (11) issues, which this court will address below.
there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict.
minds could fail to agree that the verdict was improper. Pirozzi v.
outcome of the case. Timbrook v. Foremost Ins., Co., 324 Pa. Super.
384, 387, 471 A.2d 891, 892 (1984).
Our standard of review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for a new trial is, generally, whether the trial court clearly and palpably abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Stevenson v. General Motors Corp., 51e Pa. 411, 521 A.2d 413 (1987). If support for the court's decision is found in the record, the order must be affirmed. A new trial will only be awarded where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Giovanetti v. Johns-Manville Corp., 372 Pa. Super. 431, 439, 539 A.2d 871, 875 (1988).
Applying the foregoing to this matter, Defendant is not entitled to relief.
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).
finding Defendant claimed to neither speak nor understand English. Finding of Fact ¶8.
Judge Di Vito made a determination as to credibility of the witnesses and found Mr. Mizrai credible. Conclusion of Law ¶4. Without offering an opinion on Judge Di Vito's findings, this court will not disturb them.
Defendant's remaining issues on appeal challenge Judge Di Vito's conclusion that the "lease between the parties is a valid contract." Conclusion of Law ¶1.
the No-Competition Provision gave Plaintiff exclusive possession during the term of the Agreement. Accordingly, Judge Di Vito did not err in ruling that the Agreement is a lease.
Ordinarily, a license is revocable at will. Kovach v. General Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 340 Pa. Superior Ct. 144, 489 A.2d 883 (1985); Thompson v. Department of Highways, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 329, 257 A.2d 639 (1969). A license is usually no more than a personal privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another, and it conveys no interest or estate. Thompson; Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Bowman, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 381, 474 A.2d 383 (1984). However, Pennsylvania has recognized an equitable theory of an irrevocable license when there has been substantial expenditure in reliance on the license. Kovach; Harkins v. Zamichieli, 266 Pa. Superior Ct. 401, 405 A.2d 495 (1979); Pennsylvania Game Commission. The expenditure necessary to establish an irrevocable license could be money or labor. Harkins; Pennsylvania Game Commission.
Here, sufficient evidence was produce to show Plaintiff expended money and labor by maintaining the ATM machine and continually ensuring it was properly operated and stocked with cash. Therefore, whether the Agreement is a lease or irrevocable license is of no consequence to Judge Di Vito's final ruling as to the enforceability of the Agreement.
Defendant's fourth issue on appeal claims Judge Di Vito erred because there was no meeting of the minds as to the Renewal Provision and the Attorneys' Fee Provision. This court does not agree. The evidence shows Defendant neither read the Agreement nor had the Agreement translated into Spanish before signing it. Judge Di Vito found Defendant did not request a translator or translation when signing and was not coerced to sign the Agreement. Findings of Fact ¶¶7, 8. These findings were not challenged on appeal and this court will not disturb them. The evidence also shows Defendant had access to English speaking people who could have reviewed the Agreement for Defendant before it was signed. Defendant did not avail himself of this opportunity.
neither a defense nor an excuse and will not provide grounds for avoiding the contract or any provision therein). See also, Martinez v. Skirmish, U.S.A., Inc., No. CIV.A. 07-5003, 2009 WL 1676144, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2009) (citing Pennsylvania law, release written in English was enforceable against Spanish speaking signor where there was no evidence of fraud and failure to read contract did not constitute a defense to enforceability). Defendant therefore cannot contend there was no meeting of the minds with regards to the two provisions if Defendant chose not to read or have the Agreement translated before signing it. Notwithstanding, Judge Di Vito did not award Plaintiff attorneys' fees under the Attorneys' Fee Provision.
Defendant's fifth issue on appeal argues there was no consideration for the Renewal Provision or Attorneys' Fee Provision. This court does not agree. Both of these provisions were original terms of Agreement for which consideration was provided. Because the Agreement was never modified or amended, separate or new consideration was not needed for the Renewal Provision or Attorneys' Fee Provision to be valid. Notwithstanding, Judge Di Vito did not award attorneys' fees.
Todd Heller Inc. v. United Parcel Service Inc., 754 A.2d 689, 700 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).
Here, Judge Di Vito found Defendant had operated his own store for ten (10) years before purchasing the current store. Findings of Fact ¶15. Further, the record shows the 48 month term was negotiated between the parties. Again, Judge Di Vito found Defendant was not coerced to sign the Agreement. Findings of Fact ¶8. Therefore, the evidence reveals Defendant was a sophisticated businessman and the Agreement was an arms-length contract. Accordingly, the Agreement was not a contract of adhesion.
However, even if the Court were to find the Agreement to be a contract of adhesion, such finding does not automatically render it or the two provisions substantively unconscionable, as argued by Defendant. Todd Heller, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 754 A.2d 689, 700 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). "or a Court to deem a contractual provision unconscionable it must determine both 'that the contractual terms are unreasonably favorable to the drafter and that there is no meaningful choice on the part of the other party regarding acceptance of the provisions'" Id. (citation omitted).
Here, a review of the record shows the Renewal Provision does not unreasonably favor Plaintiff. Further, as indicated above, Defendant chose not to read or have the Agreement translated prior to signing it. Again, Judge Di Vito found Defendant was not coerced into signing the Agreement. Therefore, the evidence shows Defendant had a meaningful choice with regards to accepting the Agreement or the Renewal Provision. The same analysis applies to the Attorneys' Fee Provision. Notwithstanding, Judge Di Vito did not award attorneys' fees.
The length of this agreement shall be for forty eight (48) months from commencement date. Unless cancelled in accordance with section IV(B), a new lease term will commence at the end of the previous term.
See Lease at section IV. A contract is ambiguous when the contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Commonwealth of Pa. v. Brozzetti, 684 A.2d 658, 663 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1996). However, any ambiguity must appear on the face of the contract itself, and not be created by evidence offered by the parties. Id. A contract is not ambiguous simply because the parties offer different interpretations of the language. Riccio v. American Republic Ins. Co., 453 Pa.Super. 364, 377, 683 A.2d 1226 (1996). Instead, where the contract language is clear, the court is limited to a review of the expressed terms and may not consider extrinsic or parol evidence. Steuart v. McChesney, 498 Pa. 45, 49, 444 A.2d 659, 661 (1982). Under the "plain meaning"
rule, the court must interpret the terms as manifestly expressed in the contract, rather than as silently intended by a party. Id. at 49, 444 A.2d 659.
Here, the Renewal Provision clearly renews the Agreement for the original term period of 48 months. Nowhere does the Agreement mention any one-month period. Judge Di Vito found that the Agreement automatically renewed on January 2, 2013 for another term of 48 months and concluded that the Agreement renewed at the end of the initial 48 month term. Finding of Fact ¶13, Conclusion of Law ¶2. This court will not disturb Judge Di Vito's findings and conclusions.
$50,148.50. Without offering an opinion on Judge Di Vito's findings, this court will not disturb them.
Based on the foregoing, each of the issues raised in Defendant's 1925(b) Statement are without merit Judge Di Vito's orders of November 20, 2014 and December 4, 2014 should be affirmed.
Boulevard, Suite 104, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.
3. Chrisopher Mirzai ("Mirzai") is an authorized representative of American.
Lanfranco's request reduced the lease term to forty eight (48) months.
6. The discussion between Mirzai and Lanfranco was conducted in Spanish.
translation. 8. Lanfranco was not coerced in anyway to sign the lease agreement.
Agreement commenced on January 2, 2009.
10. American collected a surcharge on transactions conducted at the machine.
transactions processed by the machine.
ATM located within the store.
placed in the store and unplugged American's ATM.
requesting that American's ATM be removed from his premises.
for the previous year in which the ATM at issue had been in place.
testified that he spoke English "in the store".
19. American incurred a loss of future income in the amount of $50,148.50.
20. American incurred attorneys' fees in the amount of $18,762.00.
1. The lease between the parties is a valid contract.
pursuant to Section IV (a) thereof.
3. Lanfranco is in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease.
4. The Court found Christopher Mirzai credible.
5. The Court found Maximo Lanfranco not credible.
6. American is entitled to recovery of its losses.
Gary F. Di Vito J.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.