In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently held that a consumer is not obligated to give a contractor written notice – or notice by any particular medium or means – when cancelling a home improvement contract within the three (3) day recission period.   

Case Background

The ruling in Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General v. Gillece Services, LP, No. 861 C.D. 2023 (July 3, 2024) stemmed from a three-judge panel court that reviews civil actions the Commonwealth initiates through state government officers acting in their official capacity, that others bring against the Commonwealth, and appeals from state agency decisions. It affirmed Gillece’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. 

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office initiated the original case under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), a law designed to restrict deceptive business procedures. The Attorney General alleged that the contractors sued would only cancel home improvement contracts unless the consumer hand-delivered a written request to the contractor’s employee or corporate offices. The Attorney General additionally alleged that the contractors further penalized customers by:

• entering their properties without permission and commencing work.
• failing to disclose that contractors would not honor verbal cancellation requests.
• failing to refund all payments within ten (10) business days of receiving the consumer’s cancellation request.
• misrepresenting to the consumer that, because they had not signed an emergency work authorization, their deposit was nonrefundable.

The complaint asserted that these actions violated either the UTPCPL or the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA). 

• UTPCPL, 73 P.S § 201-1, et seq., bars unjust, fraudulent and otherwise deceptive business practices in sales and service contracts.
• HICPA, 73 P.S. § 517.7, et seq., protects homeowners from fraudulent and deceptive home improvement contractor practices. 

HICPA works like an extension of the UTPCPL. Violations under HICPA are considered violations of the UTPCPL. 

Case Analysis

The court addressed whether HICPA requires home improvement contractors to honor a customer’s non-written cancellation request. More specifically, the court questioned whether the UTPCPL’s written notice requirements applied to HICPA. In doing so, the court scrutinized two specific UTPCPL and HICPA provisions:

• UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-7, which states that when a contractor sells or enters into an agreement for services or goods that cost twenty-five dollars ($25) or more, the consumer may cancel the contract or sale by notifying the seller, in writing, within three (3) full business days following the day on which they entered into the contract. 

• HICPA 73 P.S. § 517-7(b), which permits an individual who signed a home improvement contract, to cancel the contract without penalty, no matter where they signed the contract, within three (3) business days. 

The court stressed that HICPA left out specific written notice requirements (unlike the UTPCPL which contains such directives). Strictly observing this omission, the court found that written notice is not required to cancel a home improvement contract. It did so despite HICPA’s specific reference to UTPCL provisions.

Ultimately, for home improvement contractors, the decision indicates that they may no longer require written notices to rescind contracts and they can no longer rely upon the UTPCPL’s statutory language to ensure that their contracts are HICPA compliant.

The Fleischmann Law Firm will monitor this matter and keep you updated on any changes or developments. 

The Fleischmann Law Firm, P.C.:

The Fleischmann Law Firm specializes in business law and can guide your corporation through emerging contract laws and other rule and notice updates and changes. 

Its attorneys partner with you to minimize risk and liability, offer objective and fair assessments, and weigh all circumstances and options. They offer solid recommendations and provide superior representation.

Attorney Craig J. Fleischmann and staff offer over thirty years of experience, integrity, cost-effectiveness, value, and integrity. Contact the Fleischmann Law Firm today.