Court Opinion

ID: 9766537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:52:24.19485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:23.654355
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I do not believe that appellee’s requirement of two curb cuts twenty-five feet in width was an illegal condition. As the majority indicate, that requirement violated regulations of the Philadelphia Department of Streets, but could be cured by the grant of an exception or deviation by the Commissioner of Streets. Indeed, the ultimate purchaser of the site developed it for gas station use with two curb cuts measuring approximately twenty-two feet in width — seven feet wider than the standard established by the regulations.
Furthermore, even if there were no procedure by which an exception to the regulation might be granted, I do not believe that the condition would be illegal because there would be no violation of statutory or common law (Restatement, Contracts, §512, comments a and b), since the regulations of the Department of Streets do not have the force and effect of legislation. The question is in reality merely one of good faith on the part of the appellee for insisting on the requirements in question. The record reveals no evidence of bad faith on the part of appellee, its real estate supervisor or engineers, all of whom appear to have been ignorant of the department regulation, in establishing the twenty-five foot requirement. And I would not *608find bad faith merely because their specifications exceeded those established by the Streets Department.
Hence, I concur.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this concurring opinion.