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.

Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Constr. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 10, 2014

PRIETO CORPORATION, Appellee
v.
GAMBONE CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant

Page 603

Appeal fro the Judgment Dated May 8, 2013. In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil Division No(s).: 2009-22021. Before HAAZ, J.

Keith M. McWhirk, Skippack, for appellant.

H. Jeffrey Brahin, Doylestown, for appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,[*] JJ. OPINION BY FITZGERALD, J.

OPINION

Page 604

FITZGERALD, J.:

Appellant, Gambone Construction Co., appeals from the judgment entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Prieto Corporation. Appellant claims the trial court improperly construed the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act [1] (" CASPA" ) and challenges the sufficiency of evidence for an oral contract between the parties.

Page 605

We hold that a " curb" is both a structure and an alteration of real property, each of which falls within the scope of CASPA, and the evidence was sufficient to establish an oral contract between the parties. We affirm.

We state the facts as set forth by the trial court:

[Appellee] is in the business of constructing concrete curbs and Belgian block curbs. [Appellant] is a general contractor in the business of developing residential and commercial properties. [Appellee] worked as a subcontractor for [Appellant] from 1999 through 2007 on 198 jobs and was paid $1,917,260.79 by [Appellant].
The custom and practice of contract formation and performance between [Appellant] and [Appellee] from 1999 to 2007 is as follows. [Appellant] would customarily initiate contact with [Appellee] and request a bid for [Appellee] to construct curbs for its construction projects. [Appellee] would customarily then fax a proposal to [Appellant's] office. In response, [Appellant's] office would send a purchase order to [Appellee], and [Appellee] would perform the work as set forth in [Appellant's] purchase order. [Appellee] began the work after authorization by [Appellant]. ...

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.