Court Opinion

ID: 9630709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:18:06.587228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:42.007909
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
LALLY-GREEN, J.:
¶ 1 While the majority sets forth a persuasive rationale for its result, I respectfully dissent. The following principles of contract formation are well-settled:
In order to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration or mutual meeting of the minds. An alleged acceptance of an offer is not unconditional and, therefore, is not an acceptance if it materially alters the terms of the offer. As such, a reply which purports to accept an offer, but instead changes the terms of the offer, is not an acceptance, but, rather, is a counter-offer, which has the effect of terminating the original offer. Further, it is well established that the acceptance of any offer or counter-offer must be unconditional and absolute.
Yarnall v. Almy, 703 A.2d 535, 539 (Pa.Super.1997) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also GMH Assocs. v. The Prudential Realty Group, 752 A.2d 889, 899 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 663, 795 A.2d 976 (2000).
¶2 The record before us reflects that Dr. Shaer responded to OSCP’s new contract offer with a counter-offer. At that point, OSCP’s offer was terminated. Yar-nall. The fact that Dr. Shaer later signed and returned the document to OSCP in the time and manner specified is of no moment, since the offer was already terminated. I would hold that since the parties did not form a new contract, the trial court committed an error of law in granting summary judgment to Dr. Shaer on his breach of contract claim.
¶ 3 Moreover, for the same reason, there is no basis for Dr. Shaer’s WPCL claim. Summary judgment in favor of OSCP on Dr. Shaer’s WPCL claim is therefore appropriate.
¶ 4 In light of the foregoing, I respectfully dissent.