What does this decision mean in plain terms?

The court held that if a homeowner covered by the home‑improvement law tells a contractor orally that they want to cancel, the contractor must honor that cancellation even if the homeowner did not later submit a written notice.

Who is affected by this ruling?

Homeowners and contractors engaged in home‑improvement contracts in Pennsylvania are affected, especially where a contractor knew a homeowner asked to cancel but proceeded with work.

What happens next for the parties in this case?

The Commonwealth Court's affirmance of the lower court stands; the contractor cannot rely on lack of written notice to avoid the effective oral cancellation and may face liability or remedies ordered below.

Can this decision be appealed further?

This is a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so there is no higher state appellate remedy; federal review would require a federal question and is unlikely in routine state statutory interpretation.

OAG v. Gillece, Appeal of: Gillece

Docket 32 WAP 2024

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Type: Concurrence
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Judge: Brobson, P. Kevin
Docket: 32 WAP 2024

Appeal from the Commonwealth Court affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County's order in a consumer protection action involving home‑improvement contract cancellations.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Gillece’s argument that a consumer’s oral cancellation of a home-improvement contract is ineffective unless followed by written notice. The court concluded that the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are meant to protect consumers, and that requiring written follow-up would undermine that purpose when a seller knows a consumer asked to cancel. The court therefore held sellers must honor an oral cancellation for contracts covered by the home‑improvement law and emphasized best practices of documenting cancellations in writing.

Issues Decided

Whether a seller must honor a consumer's oral cancellation of a contract covered by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act.
Whether requiring written notice of cancellation under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law can be used to defeat an otherwise effective oral cancellation.

Court's Reasoning

The court reasoned that the statutes at issue are designed to protect consumers from unfair practices and that interpreting the statutes to demand written follow-up would subvert that protective purpose. Where a seller is aware of a consumer's request to cancel and proceeds without honoring it, allowing the seller to rely on a lack of written notice would turn the written‑notice provision into a weapon against consumers. The protective aim of the statutes and the facts showing the seller's knowledge of the cancellation tipped the outcome in favor of enforcing oral cancellations.

Authorities Cited

Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)73 P.S. §§ 201-1 to -10
Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA)73 P.S. §§ 517.1 to .19
Commonwealth v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.247 A.3d 934 (Pa. 2021)

Parties

Appellant: Gillece Services, L.P., d/b/a Gillece Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, and Electrical, Inc.; Gillece Plumbing and Heating, Inc.; and Thomas J. Gillece
Appellee: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, by Attorney General David W. Sunday, Jr.
Judge: Justice Brobson
Judge: Justice McCaffery (Majority)
Judge: Justices Donohue and Mundy (joined concurring opinion)

Key Dates

Common Pleas order: 2023-08-01
Commonwealth Court affirmance: 2024-07-03
Argued: 2025-10-07
Supreme Court decision: 2026-04-30

What You Should Do Next

1
For consumers: document cancellations
Even though oral cancellations are enforceable, consumers should promptly follow up in writing to create a clear record and avoid disputes.
2
For contractors: revise practices
Contractors should adopt procedures to immediately confirm cancellations in writing and halt work when a consumer expresses a clear cancellation request to avoid liability.
3
Consult counsel about compliance
Parties involved in similar disputes should consult an attorney to review their contracts and cancellation procedures to ensure compliance with UTPCPL and HICPA.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this decision mean in plain terms?: The court held that if a homeowner covered by the home‑improvement law tells a contractor orally that they want to cancel, the contractor must honor that cancellation even if the homeowner did not later submit a written notice.
Who is affected by this ruling?: Homeowners and contractors engaged in home‑improvement contracts in Pennsylvania are affected, especially where a contractor knew a homeowner asked to cancel but proceeded with work.
What happens next for the parties in this case?: The Commonwealth Court's affirmance of the lower court stands; the contractor cannot rely on lack of written notice to avoid the effective oral cancellation and may face liability or remedies ordered below.
Can this decision be appealed further?: This is a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so there is no higher state appellate remedy; federal review would require a federal question and is unlikely in routine state statutory interpretation.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

[J-77-2025] [MO: McCaffery, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 32 WAP 2024
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY :
ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID W. : Appeal from the Order of the
SUNDAY, JR. : Commonwealth Court entered
: July 3, 2024, at No. 861 CD 2023,
: Affirming the Order of the Court of
v. : Common Pleas of Allegheny County
: entered August 1, 2023, at No. GD-
: 20-9374.
GILLECE SERVICES, L.P., D/B/A GILLECE :
PLUMBING, HEATING, COOLING, AND : ARGUED: October 7, 2025
ELECTRICAL, INC., GILLECE PLUMBING :
AND HEATING, INC., ROOTER-MEDIC, :
ELECTRIC MEDIC, GILLECE PLUMBING :
AND HEATING, INC.,THOMAS J. :
GILLECE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS :
OWNER OF GILLECE SERVICES, L.P., :
GILLECE ENERGY, L.P., AND GILLECE :
PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC., JAMES :
F. HACKWELDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS :
FIELD SUPERVISOR FOR GILLECE :
SERVICES, L.P., AND JOSEPH NIKOULA, :
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FIELD :
SUPERVISOR FOR GILLECE SERVICES, :
L.P. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: GILLECE SERVICES, L.P., :
D/B/A GILLECE PLUMBING, HEATING, :
COOLING, AND ELECTRICAL, INC., :
GILLECE PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC., :
AND THOMAS J. GILLECE :

CONCURRING OPINION
JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: APRIL 30, 2026
I join the Majority in full. I write separately to further emphasize the purpose of the

Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) 1 and the Home

Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) 2 and to note that Gillece Services, L.P.,

its General Partner, Gillece Plumbing and Heating, Inc., and Thomas J. Gillece

(collectively, Gillece) could have avoided this litigation entirely had they operated with the

interests of their consumers in mind. The Majority correctly notes that Gillece’s proposed

interpretation of the UTPCPL and HICPA would subvert the purpose of those statutes,

which both serve to protect consumers. (See Majority Op. at 13.) Gillece had knowledge

that their consumers desired to cancel work contracts, but instead of simply honoring

those cancellation requests or providing their consumers with further written forms to

document the cancellation, Gillece rushed to perform unwanted work. Gillece then

attempted to utilize the UTPCPL’s requirement that a consumer provide a seller with

written notice of cancellation as a sword against their consumers when, through its

intended purpose, the UTPCPL acts as a shield that “aims to protect the consumers of

the Commonwealth against fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices.”

Commonwealth v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 247 A.3d 934, 936 (Pa. 2021) (quoting

Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1023

(Pa. 2018)). In fact, the written requirement in the UTPCPL also acts, in a way, to protect

sellers by creating a clear record that a consumer did, in fact, cancel a transaction.

Today the Majority correctly determines that sellers, like Gillece, must honor a

consumer’s oral request to cancel a contract that falls under the ambit of HICPA. It would,

nevertheless, remain best practice for parties to formalize the cancellation of a home

1 Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, reenacted by the Act of November 24, 1976, as

amended, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 to -10.
2 Act of October 17, 2008, P.L. 1645, as amended, 73 P.S. §§ 517.1 to .19.

[J-77-2025] [MO: McCaffery, J.] - 2
improvement contract in writing. Rather than working against their consumers,

businesses should, after honoring an oral request for cancellation by not moving forward

with the contracted-for work, simply ask the consumers to document the cancellations in

writing.

Justices Donohue and Mundy join this concurring opinion.

[J-77-2025] [MO: McCaffery, J.] - 3