Court Opinion

ID: 9715437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:05:43.330099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.032942
License: Public Domain

*56Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s decision to vacate the Superior Court’s order, as any claim for unjust enrichment under § 374 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. While the parties have not contested whether such a claim is viable, current law provides a defaulting vendee is not entitled to recover partial payments where it failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, even if the non-defaulting vendor makes a profit by reason of the default. Kaufman Hotel & Restaurant Company v. Thomas, 411 Pa. 87, 190 A.2d 434 (1963). Thus, the defaulting vendee cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim here; our court cannot enforce a claim which current law prohibits, simply because the parties believe it should exist. For an unjust enrichment claim to be viable here, this Court would have to overturn Kaufman Hotel
Thus I write separately, and would vacate the Superior Court’s order based on Kaufman Hotel without reaching the statute of limitations question.