Contracts

Brief

Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co.

Procedural History:

• Lower Court ruled for the Plaintiff.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed.

Facts:

• Bollinger’s entered into an agreement  which provided that the defendant was to be permitted to deposit on the property of the plaintiffs, construction waste as it engaged in work on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
• Bollinger’s are claiming that there had been a mutual understanding between them and the defendant that prior to depositing such waste on the property, the defendant would remove the topsoil of the plaintiffs property, pile on it the waste material and then restore the topsoil to cover the waste.
• The Bollinger’s did not read over the contract before signing it and just assumed it was in the written agreement.
• When the defendant first began working on the turnpike, they did just that.
• But after a certain period of time they ceased doing this.
• When asking the defendant to resume the topsoil removal and cover the waste with the topsoil, the defendant replied that there was nothing in the written contract which obligated them to do so.
• It was at this point the plaintiff realized it was not in the written agreement.

Issue:

• Whether the mistake was a mutual mistake between the parties?

Holding:

• Yes. Affirmed.

Reasoning:

• A court of equity has the power to reform the written evidence of a contract and make it correspond to the understanding of the parties; however, the mistake must be mutual to the parties of the contract.
• The court felt there was a mutual misunderstanding due to the undisputed evidence.
• The defendant did remove and set aside the topsoil on part of the area before depositing its waste and did replace the topsoil over such waste after such depositing.
  • It would not have done so unless it agreed.