Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. Case Brief

Superior Court of Pennsylvania2006Docket #1901032
895 A.2d 595 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 70 2006 Pa. Super. 54 2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 243 Contracts Sales (UCC Article 2)

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

Contracts Focus
3 min read

tl;dr: A company provided a “free” industrial byproduct for a construction project. When the material failed, the user sued. The court found that the supplier’s avoidance of disposal costs constituted consideration, creating an enforceable contract, not a mere conditional gift.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies the modern test for consideration, establishing that a promisor’s benefit, such as avoiding a cost, can serve as consideration to form a contract, even if not explicitly negotiated as the “price” of the promise.

Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

American Ash Recycling Corp. (“American Ash”) supplied a material called AggRite, a byproduct of coal combustion that is classified as hazardous waste. To avoid incurring substantial disposal costs, American Ash actively promoted AggRite’s use as a construction aggregate and provided it free of charge. A school construction project’s specifications permitted paving subcontractor Pennsy Supply, Inc. (“Pennsy”) to use AggRite as a base material. The specifications noted the material was available from American Ash at no cost. Pennsy contacted American Ash and subsequently obtained over 11,000 tons of AggRite for the project. After Pennsy completed the paving, the pavement developed extensive cracking due to defects in the AggRite. Pennsy was required to perform remedial work, which included the costly removal and disposal of the hazardous AggRite. Pennsy sued American Ash for breach of contract and other claims. The trial court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that because the AggRite was free, the transaction was a conditional gift lacking the consideration necessary to form an enforceable contract.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a promisor’s benefit from a promisee’s performance, such as the avoidance of disposal costs, constitute sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract, even if that benefit was not explicitly bargained for by the parties?

Yes. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Pennsy’s allegations were sufficient Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a promisor’s benefit from a promisee’s performance, such as the avoidance of disposal costs, constitute sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract, even if that benefit was not explicitly bargained for by the parties?

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that consideration can be found in the economic benefit Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mi

Legal Rule

Consideration consists of a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o

Legal Analysis

The court distinguished between a conditional gift and a bargained-for exchange by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A promise to provide a product for “free” is supported by
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Success in law school is 10% intelligence and 90% persistence.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+