Reference no: EM131014994

Robert G. Rawlinson was employed by Germantown Manufacturing in Marple Township as its assistant controller. He embezzled $372,113.21 from the company, which discovered the theft, though not the exact amount, on May 21, 1982. Mr. Rawlinson admitted his wrongdoing and was fired. He did not tell his wife, and it was not until she eavesdropped on a telephone conversation between her husband and Peter Kulaski that she discov- ered something was amiss. Mr. Rawlinson told her (after his phone conversation) that he had taken $20,000 from the company and was fired. Mrs. Rawlinson testified that her "whole world fell apart" upon hearing the news. She was already depressed and tired because of a miscarriage she had suffered in late April.

The following day, Mr. Kulaski came to the Rawlinson home and asked them to sign two judgment notes. The first note was for $160,000, the amount Mr. Rawlinson admitted taking from the company. The second note was for any amounts above and beyond the $160,000 that would be established by the company president as having been taken by Mr. Rawlinson. Mrs. Rawlinson's name was on the documents, and she asked if they should not have an attorney. Mr. Kulaski told them they did not need an attorney because the company was acting in good faith and that no criminal charges would be brought if the Rawlinsons would cooperate. Mrs. Rawlinson felt that if she signed the notes, her husband would not go to jail.

Mrs. Rawlinson had never before seen a judgment note and cried while trying to read these. She thought she was signing only for $160,000 and, because her hus- band had a check for $150,000 ready to turn over, that they could easily come up with the remaining $10,000.

In August 1982, the president of the company verified that the total amount taken was $212,113.21 more than the $160,000 already paid. When demand for payment was made, Mrs. Rawlinson requested that the confession of judgment be opened and disallowed on the basis of misrepresentation. The lower court found for Mrs. Rawlinson, and Germantown Manufacturing appealed. Give a list of defenses Mrs. Rawlinson could use. [Germantown Mfg. Co. v. Rawlinson, 491 A.2d 138 (Pa. 1985)]