Case Name: David M. SOCKO, Respondent v. MID-ATLANTIC SYSTEMS OF CPA, INC., Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2014-12-11
Citations: 105 A.3d 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: David M. SOCKO, Respondent v. MID-ATLANTIC SYSTEMS OF CPA, INC., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 105
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
David M. SOCKO, Respondent v. MID-ATLANTIC SYSTEMS OF CPA, INC., Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec. 11, 2014.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW,- this 11th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:
(1)Did the Superior Court misconstrue the Uniform Written Obligations Act, 33 Pa. Stat. § 6 (West 2014) ("UWOA") considering the UWOA is not a "substitute for consideration," nor is it intended to "rectify a lack of consideration" as the Superior Court asserts, but instead, is a statute that merely prevents a party to a written agreement in which the party expresses an intention to be legally bound from later challenging that validity of the contract based upon lack of consideration?
(2) Did the Superior Court erroneously rely upon allegedly analogous "seal" cases to support its determination that the UWOA does not provide consideration for a non-competition restrictive covenant entered into subsequent to the commencement of the employment relation, considering a seal on a document has long been held to input consideration, whereas, to the contrary, the UWOA does not input consideration, and the authority relied upon by the Superior Court did not support this conclusion^]
(3) Did the Superior Court impermissi-bly amend the UWOA under the guise of interpreting it?