Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NATIONAL BUILDING LEASING v. M. ELVIN BYLER (12/28/77)

decided: December 28, 1977.

NATIONAL BUILDING LEASING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
M. ELVIN BYLER, J. ROBERT HESS, RAYMOND H. DENLINGER, J. HAROLD ESBENSHADE, GLENN H. WEAVER, AND HAROLD G. KING, PARTNERS, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS OLD SYCAMORE ASSOCIATES



No. 2157 October Term, 1976, Appeal from the Order dated June 11, 1976, of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Civil Action, Law Division, at No. 137 September Term, 1975.

COUNSEL

R. A. Umbenhauer, Lancaster, with him John P. Hohenadel, Lancaster, for appellant.

John W. Burge, Lancaster, for appellees.

Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Cercone, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Price

[ 252 Pa. Super. Page 372]

The lower court disposed of this case by sustaining appellees' preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to appellant's complaint. For purposes of appellate review, we must regard the allegations in appellant's complaint as true and accord them all the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fioravanti, 451 Pa. 108, 299 A.2d 585 (1973); Stringert & Bowers, Inc. v. On-Line Systems, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 196, 345 A.2d 194 (1975).

On March 11, 1974, appellees entered into a written contract to sell certain realty to appellant. Prior to appellant's inspection of the premises and the execution of the contract, appellees demolished a number of buildings on the property. The debris from the buildings and other waste materials were deposited in a large hole located on the realty. Thereafter, the hole was filled with soil and covered with vegetation.

Although knowing that appellant intended to construct a trucking terminal on the premises, appellees intentionally and fraudulently concealed the existence of the debris-filled hole from appellant. Furthermore, appellees intentionally and fraudulently represented to appellant that the debris

[ 252 Pa. Super. Page 373]

    from the demolished buildings had been removed from the premises.

In order to complete the construction of the trucking terminal, appellant was required to excavate the hole completely and to remove all of the debris. Appellant's complaint requested the cost of this undertaking, $29,194.41, in damages.

The written contract between the parties contained, inter alia, the following provision:

"It is understood that Buyer has inspected the property or hereby waives the right to do so and he has agreed to purchase it as a result of such inspection and not because of or in reliance upon any representation made by the Seller, or by the agent of the Seller or any of the latter's salesmen and employees, . . . and that he has agreed to purchase it in its present condition unless otherwise specified herein. It is further understood that this agreement contains the whole agreement between the Seller and the Buyer and there are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements or conditions, oral or otherwise of any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.