National Loan Investors v. Gold – Pa. Superior Court – 11-13-20
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A17011-20m%20-%20104603903119751379.pdf?cb=1
This decision is not precedential but it is worth reading and considering. It upholds the argument that the contract/instrument was under seal – and thus extended the statute of limitations in the matter to 20 years.
This writer would like to see a challenge to this and similar cases. It seems to me that no one realize the effect of a contract being under seal ,and that a waiver of the normal rules for statutes of limitations should only be enforced when it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
See, e.g., Cole v. Philadelphia Co., 26 A.2d 920, 924 (Pa. 1942), “To make proof of waiver of a legal right there must be clear, unequivocal and decisive action of the party with knowledge of such right showing a purpose to surrender such right on his part.” Accord, Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 186 A. 2d. 399, 401 (Pa. 1962); Johnson v. Concord Mutual Insurance Co., 300 A. 2d 61, 64-5 (Pa. 1973); Transnational Consumer Discount Co. v. Kefauver, 307 A.2d 303, 305 (Pa. Super. 1973).
“An agreement or instrument which reduces legal rights which would otherwise exist is strictly construed against the party asserting it and must spell out with the utmost particularity the intention of the parties,” e.g. an exculpatory clause relieving a landlord of liability for negligence with respect to the conditions of stairs, etc. Galligan . Arovitch, 219 A. 2d 463, 464-5 (Pa. 1966).
There are also cases involving a confession of judgment with similar language, e.g., Cutler v. Latshaw, 97 A.2d 234 (Pa,. 1953), and its progeny,.
