Opinion ID: 1925900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Austin J. Richards, Inc. v. Violet I. McClafferty

Text: Violet I. McClafferty retained the services of the law firm of Davis and Abramovitz to assist her in selling real estate known as No. 719 Bellefonte Street, Pittsburgh. The employment of counsel was general, however, and there was no written agreement which defined the duties or authority of the lawyers to act on McClafferty's behalf. McClafferty's asking price was $44,000.00. Austin J. Richards, Inc., a corporation engaged in making real estate investments, made a written offer to Abramovitz to purchase the premises for $36,000.00. McClafferty rejected the offer. However, she made a counter-offer via an agreement of sale, which she had signed, reciting the price to be $40,000.00. Richards did not accept this counter-offer. However, Maurice A. Nernberg, the sole shareholder in the Richards corporation, spoke with Davis  Abramovitz was then out of town  and suggested that Richards would be willing to pay $38,500.00 for the premises provided that certain changes were made in the terms of the written agreement which had been submitted. Nernberg testified in depositions that Davis told him the price and amended terms were satisfactory. Later on the same day, Nernberg changed the price to $38,500.00 and made other changes in the written agreement of sale. He then initialed the changes and signed the agreement. Davis did not initial the changes or sign the agreement but told Nernberg that the altered agreement would have to be submitted to McClafferty. By the time the altered agreement was presented to McClafferty for review, she had received an offer from Infil Corporation to purchase the real estate for $44,000.00. McClafferty elected to accept the Infil offer, and a written agreement of sale was drafted and executed. She rejected the Richards corporation's offer of $38,500.00. Richards then commenced an action against McClafferty for breach of contract. By way of defense, McClafferty denied the existence of any agreement to sell to Richards, denied that her attorneys had had authority to accept the Richards offer on her behalf, and alleged an affirmative statute of frauds defense that Davis had not had written authority to bind her to sell the real estate for $38,500.00. After discovery had been completed, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of McClafferty. Richards appealed. In Thorsen v. Iron and Glass Bank, 328 Pa.Super. 135, 476 A.2d 928 (1984), this Court defined the role of a motion for summary judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1035 as follows: A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b). See also: Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa.Super. 50, 54, 457 A.2d 108, 109 (1983); Williams v. Pilgrim Life Insurance Co., 306 Pa.Super. 170, 172, 452 A.2d 269, 270 (1982). In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 82-83, 468 A.2d 468, 470 (1983); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 322 Pa.Super. 121, 124-125, 469 A.2d 212, 213 (1983); Wilk v. Haus, 313 Pa.Super. 479, 482, 460 A.2d 288, 289-290 (1983). It is not part of the court's function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. Wilk v. Haus, supra, 313 Pa.Superior Ct. at 482, 460 A.2d at 290; Tom Morello Construction Co. v. Bridgeport Federal Savings & Loan Association, 280 Pa.Super. 329, 334, 421 A.2d 747, 750 (1980). Any doubt must be resolved against the moving party. Chorba v. Davlisa Enterprises, Inc., 303 Pa.Super. 497, 500, 450 A.2d 36, 38 (1982); First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Triester, 251 Pa.Super. 372, 378, 380 A.2d 826, 829 (1977). Id., 328 Pa.Superior Ct. at 140-141, 476 A.2d at 930-931. There can be no dispute in this case that Violet I. McClafferty did not sign a written agreement to sell her real estate to Richards for $38,500.00. It is also clear that neither Abramovitz nor Davis had written authority, signed by McClafferty, to sell or agree to sell the real estate on her behalf. Therefore, an attempt by Davis to bind his principal to sell the real estate to Richards for $38,500.00, if that is what happened, was unenforceable by virtue of the statute of frauds. Act of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm.L. 389, § 1, 33 P.S. § 1; Feingold v. Davis, 444 Pa. 339, 282 A.2d 291 (1971). See also: Charles v. Henry, 460 Pa. 673, 677, 334 A.2d 289, 291 (1975); Glasgow v. G.R.C. Coal Co., 295 Pa.Super. 498, 501, 442 A.2d 249, 250 (1981); The need for written authority, signed by the principal, is not obviated where the agency springs from a lawyer-client relationship. Cf. Starling v. West Erie Ave. Building & Loan Ass'n, 333 Pa. 124, 3 A.2d 387 (1939). Appellant concedes that there was no written agreement of agency between McClafferty and her attorneys. It is argued, however, that the agreement which McClafferty did sign is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds even though she did not see or agree to it after the price had been changed to $38,500.00. This defect, it is argued, is obviated because her attorney agreed to the changes. Appellant also contends that references in appellee's pleadings to the existence of an attorney-client relationship are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and demonstrate authority of the attorneys to bind their principal. We disagree with both of these contentions. The statute of frauds is not satisfied . . . by a written offer and a written acceptance which annexes additional terms, conditions, or other variations which are not in turn accepted in writing by the party making the original offer. Even where oral modifications of a written offer or acceptance are agreed to by the other party, the contract, being partly in parole [sic], is deemed to be an oral contract and insufficient under the statute. Target Sportswear, Inc. v. Clearfield Foundation, 327 Pa.Super. 1, 15, 474 A.2d 1142, 1149-1150 (1984), quoting 37 C.J.S. Statute of Frauds § 180(c) (emphasis by Target court). It is clear, therefore, that the proposed agreement, signed by McClafferty, to sell at a price of $40,000.00, did not satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds with respect to Richards's counter-offer to buy for $38,500.00. When Richards changed the price in the agreement to $38,500.00, a figure to which McClafferty had not agreed, there was no writing demonstrating an agreement by McClafferty to sell. Moreover, Davis did not have written authority to accept the proposed amendment on her behalf. In short, there was no enforceable agreement to sell the real estate for $38,500.00 and no written authority to the lawyers to bind McClafferty to such a sale. It is correct, as appellant contends, that the requirements of the statute of frauds can be met by admissions contained in the pleadings. Lehner v. Montgomery, 180 Pa.Super. 493, 498, 119 A.2d 626, 628 (1956). The admissions, however, must be clear and unequivocal. Kirk v. Ford, 330 Pa. 579, 200 A. 26 (1938). In the instant case there is no clear and unequivocal admission by McClafferty that her lawyers had authority to bind her to an agreement to sell her property for $38,500.00. The discovery depositions establish, on the contrary, that there was no special relationship between McClafferty and her attorneys which would have authorized them to agree to the terms of a sale on her behalf. It is also abundantly clear that Davis did not represent that he had authority to bind his firm's client, for he refused to initial the changes in the agreement made by the buyer and told Nernberg that those changes would have to be submitted to Mrs. McClafferty for approval. We conclude, therefore, that the entry of summary judgment in favor of McClafferty was proper and must be affirmed. [1]