Case Name: Richard H. SCHWARTZ and Melanie A. Schwartz, Husband and Wife, Respondents, v. William R. ROCKEY and Connie M. Rockey, Husband and Wife, Petitioners, v. Holly Corace and Howard Hanna Company, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2006-09-06
Citations: 908 A.2d 267
Docket Number: Appeal No. 90 WAL 2006
Parties: Richard H. SCHWARTZ and Melanie A. Schwartz, Husband and Wife, Respondents, v. William R. ROCKEY and Connie M. Rockey, Husband and Wife, Petitioners, v. Holly Corace and Howard Hanna Company, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 908
Pages: 267–267

Head Matter:
Richard H. SCHWARTZ and Melanie A. Schwartz, Husband and Wife, Respondents, v. William R. ROCKEY and Connie M. Rockey, Husband and Wife, Petitioners, v. Holly Corace and Howard Hanna Company, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Sept. 6, 2006.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following:
a. Did the Superior Court misapply the law of election of remedies and therefore incorrectly hold that the trial court misapplied the law when it held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to rescission because they had effectively affirmed the contract?
b. Did the Superior Court err in holding that proof of fraud alone, without more, is sufficient for a court to award treble damages under the UTPCPL?