Scholl v. Hartzell

From Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 02:40, July 14, 2023 by Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Scholl v. Hartzell
Court Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Northampton
Citation 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 304 (1981)
Date decided 1981


Plaintiff agreed with defendant to purchase his 1962 Corvette and miscellaneous auto parts for $4,000. He gave defendant a deposit of $100 and agreed to pay him the balance upon pick up of the vehicle. Defendant then advised plaintiff that he would not accept his tender, and thereby breached the contract.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an action in replevin.


Whether a 1962 Corvette automobile may be considered unique enough to allow a complaint of specific performance to recover.


Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint.


The car is not unique enough to allow a complaint of specific performance, but allows itself to the action of assumpsit.