## Facts

- A seller advertised a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette and miscellaneous parts for sale.
- A buyer responded, inspected the vehicle and parts, and the parties agreed on a price.
- The buyer paid a deposit, and the seller gave a written receipt stating the balance would be paid upon pickup.
- The buyer later obtained a money order for the remaining balance to tender at pickup.
- About two days later, the seller repudiated, returned the deposit, and refused to complete the sale.
- The buyer rejected the repudiation and sought recovery of the vehicle and parts.

## Issues

1. Whether the buyer could maintain an action in replevin to obtain possession of the Corvette and parts rather than being limited to damages.
2. Whether the circumstances justified specific recovery of the goods (including whether the goods were sufficiently “unique” and whether damages would be inadequate).
3. Whether the buyer’s choice of replevin constrained the court’s available relief even if a sales contract existed.

## Decision

- The court denied the buyer’s replevin claim and did not order delivery of the Corvette and parts.
- The court treated replevin as an extraordinary remedy available only when statutory and equitable prerequisites are met.
- The court concluded the buyer had not shown entitlement to specific recovery of the goods and was, at most, left to pursue monetary damages for breach in an appropriate action.

## Legal Principles

- Replevin is a specialized possessory remedy; a buyer must satisfy its requirements and cannot obtain delivery merely by showing a breach of a sales agreement.
- Specific recovery of goods is generally limited to goods that are legally “unique” or where substitute goods cannot reasonably be obtained and damages are inadequate.
- The fact that goods are collectible or uncommon does not, by itself, establish the level of uniqueness required for replevin or specific performance.
- Selecting replevin as the cause of action can limit available remedies; if replevin is not warranted, the court may deny possession even though contract damages might be available in a different form of action.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel delivery of a classic car through replevin, holding that the buyer did not establish the prerequisites for specific recovery of the goods and that monetary damages, rather than forced transfer of the vehicle, were the appropriate remedy.


Scholl v. Hartzell, 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 304 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 1981)