Bayne v. Smith - Superior Court - January 26, 2009
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a28016_08.pdf
The court reversed the trial court and held that the lease was not an adhesion contract and that the attorney fee provision was not unconscionable. The tenant did not show a lack of meaningful choice about whether to accept the provision, or that the provision unreasonably favored the landlord.
The court held that critical language in Galligan v. Arovitch, 421 Pa. 301[, 219 A.2d 463] (1966), was mere dicta. It found that the trial court’s reliance on Galligan and Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 459 Pa. 450, 485-486, 329 A.2d 812, 830 (1974)] was "misplaced" and the the tenant "failed to satisfy her burden as to unconscionability."
The fee provision in question would have allowed the tenant to recover attorney fees from the landlord had she prevailed in her defense. It gave the "prevailing party" the right to recover fees.
