Court Opinion

ID: 9750000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:11:35.899884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:01.298893
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting.
I write separately to respectfully dissent and to emphasize my disapproval of judicial intervention into an area which should be reserved exclusively for the Legislature.
*542As indicated by Mr. Justice Zappala in his dissent, the majority acknowledges that in extending Chapter 21 of the Uniform Commercial Code1 to the lease of goods, it has usurped a proper legislative function. History has shown that there are occasions in which judicial activism is appropriate and even mandated by the judiciary’s inherent responsibility to protect the citizens of this Commonwealth. However, in my view, this power is easily abused and should be sparingly utilized only in matters of extraordinary social importance. The case sub judice does not occasion such blatant judicial interference.
Therefore, based upon my strong disagreement with the Superior Court’s finding that the judiciary should extend the sales provisions of the U.C.C. to cover lease agreements, I would affirm the Superior Court decision in result only. However, since the majority has decided otherwise with regard to the issue of extension of the applicable U.C.C. provisions, I am constrained to join Mr. Justice Zappala in dissent because I would agree that the majority has further compounded it’s error by misapplying Section 2725 to the facts at issue in the case at bar.

. 13 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2725.