Court Opinion

ID: 9641557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:34:38.698498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:59.943374
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by Judge Hoffman, however, I cannot agree with the broad sweep and application given to Atlantic Richfield Company v. Razumic, 480 Pa. 366, 390 A.2d 736 (1978), and Kowatch v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 480 Pa. 388, 390 A.2d 747 (1978). Under the facts deemed established in this case, I would hold that there is no franchise relationship between appellants and appellee. The affirmation of the appellee’s demurrer should be solely because appellee owes no duties to appellants outside the leases and outside the Pennsylvania Gasoline Act.1 If this be so, there can be no question of the correctness of the court below in sustaining appellee’s demurrer, since, even by the much stricter requirements Judge Hoffman imposes, he finds appellants have not presented a cause of action.
In all other respects I agree with Judge Hoffman.

. Act of November 26, 1975, P.L. 454, No. 126; (73 P.S. § 202-1) et seq. (Supp. 1978-79).