Scholl v. Hartzell

Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania · 1981 · Contracts

ContractsSalesReplevinSpecific PerformanceUCC buyer remediesreplevinexecutory contractspecific performance

Facts

The defendant advertised a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette and miscellaneous parts for sale for $4,000. After inspecting the car and parts, the plaintiff agreed to buy them, paid a $100 deposit, and received a receipt stating that the remaining $3,900 would be due on pickup. The plaintiff later told the defendant he had obtained a bank money order for the balance, but before delivery the defendant said he would not accept tender, returned the $100 deposit, and ignored the plaintiff's demand to complete the sale. The plaintiff then brought replevin seeking possession upon payment of the price, or alternatively damages.

Issue

May a buyer who paid a deposit under an alleged sales agreement maintain an action in replevin to obtain the goods when the seller refuses to complete the sale? More specifically, did the plaintiff acquire an exclusive and immediate right to possession sufficient for replevin under these pleaded facts?

Rule

Replevin lies only when the claimant has the exclusive and immediate right to possession of personal property. It does not lie to enforce an unexecuted or executory contract, and a buyer's deposit under a sales agreement does not by itself create the immediate possessory right necessary for replevin. Under 13 Pa.C.S.A. §2716, replevin is available to a buyer for goods identified to the contract if, after reasonable effort, cover cannot be effected or such effort would be unavailing; specific performance may be decreed where goods are unique or in other proper circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Pittsburgh, Lena Ortiz agreed to buy a used commercial espresso machine from Daniel Keene for $6,000. She paid a $300 deposit and received a handwritten receipt stating that the remaining $5,700 was due when she picked up the machine three days later, but Daniel refused to complete the deal before pickup.

If Lena files an action in replevin seeking possession of the machine upon payment of the balance, what is the strongest argument against her claim?

Explanation. The majority held that replevin requires the claimant to have an exclusive and immediate right to possession. A deposit and receipt do not create that right when both parties still must perform—here, payment of the balance and transfer of the goods. In that situation, the sales agreement is still executory, so replevin cannot be used to enforce it indirectly. (Derived from Scholl v. Hartzell (n.d.).)