Contracts — Oral contracts — Validity — Contract with State administrative agency — Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — Statutory requirements — Contract for transportation and delivery of liquor — Restitution and unjust enrichment — Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. 13.
1. In matters of importance to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board it is necessary to comply with the requirements of § 3 of the Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. 13 (which provides that "two members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and any action or order of the Board shall require the approval of at least two members") by having formal action taken at a duly constituted Board meeting. [415-17]
2. Where it appeared that representatives of the Liquor Control Board entered into an oral agreement pertaining to the transportation and delivery of liquor in the Pittsburgh district at a time when the Board was under a contract with another company for the storage, handling and delivery of the Board's various brands of liquor in the Pittsburgh district, it was Held that the oral agreement involved a matter of such importance that it required the attention and action of the Board, in accordance with the requirements of § 3 of the Act of 1933 and that the oral agreement was in contravention of the provisions of that section and invalid. [412-21]
3. Where a statute provides that a contract by a governmental agency shall be executed in a particular manner, the method prescribed by the statute must be pursued in order to have a binding contract. [416-17]
4. Persons contracting with a governmental agency must, at their peril, know the extent of the power of its officers making the contract. [417]
5. Where official action of an administrative board is required by statute, there can be no quasi contract recovery if the requisite statutory provisions have not been complied with. [419]
6. In a suit brought against an administrative agency of the Commonwealth, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not extend to benefits which by their very nature cannot be surrendered and the retention of which is involuntary. [419-20]
OPINION PER CURIAM, November 8, 1954:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge NEELY.