# L. B. Foster Co. v. Tri-W Construction Co.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 28, 1962 · 409 Pa. 318

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705839

## Case

- **Full name:** L. B. Foster Company, Appellant, v. Tri-W Construction Company, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 28, 1962
- **Citations:** 409 Pa. 318; 186 A.2d 18
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bell
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, O'Brien, Keim
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705839

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell :
I dissent. The agreement provides: “This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and the Lessee acknowledges that he has read this Contract before signing, understands the terms hereof and has received a copy of this Contract. This Contract and all teems and conditions, rights and remedies herein contained and set forth on the reverse side hereof shall bind the parties hereto, their heirs and each of their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. . . .” The signatures of the parties followed this language.
The reverse side of the agreement contained a power of attorney to confess judgment. The contract provides in capital letters that the terms and conditions, rights and remedies are set forth on the Reverse Side and shall bind the parties. The language could not be clearer, nor could the intention of the parties be more clearly expressed.
I believe that Frantz Tractor Company, Inc. v. Wyoming Valley Nursery, 384 Pa. 213 , 120 A. 2d 303 , is distinguishable, because the warrant of attorney authorizing the confession of judgment was “so finely printed as not to be readily legible and so close in type as to be blurred in places.” However, if not distinguishable, I would overrule Frantz. For these reasons, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705839. Public record. Not legal advice.