DISSENTING OPINION BY
KLEIN, J.:¶ 1 I agree with the majority that there is no cause of action in this case under the GSISA and that the RPAA is the statute which is properly applied to rent-to-own contracts.2 I also agree with the general proposition stated by the majority that well pled facts will make out a cause of action even if the specific theory of recovery is incorrect or not mentioned. I must dissent nonetheless because I believe the majority has granted relief not sought on an issue that was not preserved for appeal, about which argument was never made.
¶ 2 I do not believe that the record in this matter supports the majority’s holding. I first note that Griffin has waived all arguments on appeal except for the argument that the Goods and Services Act (GSISA) is the appropriate law. Griffin did not claim in his argument to our Court that regardless of the alleged violations of the statute cited in the complaint, the well-pled facts nonetheless set forth sufficient information that makes out a viable cause of action (in this case, under the Rental-Purchase Agreement Act — RPAA.) Thus, I believe it is improper for the majority to make the argument for appellant and to fashion relief never requested. The sole relief requested by Griffin was to be allowed to proceed under the umbrella of the GSISA.3
¶ 3 This is not a jurisdictional issue that may be raised sua sponte by our Court. The rationale of the majority and the relief granted represents a specific argument never preserved by Griffin, never presented to the trial court, never addressed by the trial court opinion, and never argued before our Court.
¶ 4 Moreover, Griffin voluntarily abandoned his claim under the RPAA. The majority finds the argument not waived because Griffin had, in the original complaint, filed a claim under the RPAA. This is of no matter. The claim was given up and Griffin has put forth an all-or-nothing argument on appeal.4
¶ 5 Further, I believe the majority is incorrect in the determination that the facts, as pled, support an action under the RPAA. The RPAA sets forth the requirements of a rental-purchase agreement. It states what must and what may not be contained in such an agreement. For ex*402ample, if Griffin had averred in the complaint that the agreement never set forth amount and timing of the rental payments,5 see 42 Pa.C.S. § 6903(a)(3), then that fact would support a claim under the RPAA. No such facts are to be found in the complaint. Rather, Griffin claims that Rent-A-Center provided misleading information in claiming some of the merchandise rented was new when it was really used. The RPAA requires a lessor to provide lessee with such information. The information was provided, but it is alleged that information was false. This might make out a prima facie claim under the UTCPL or common law fraud, but not under the RPAA.6
¶ 6 For the foregoing reasons I must dissent and I would affirm the dismissal of Griffin’s complaint.
. In addition to the well-founded rationale of the majority on this issue, I would also add that a plain reading of the statute, which references all requirements of "rental-purchase agreements” including the lessee’s right to acquire ownership, makes it clear that the RPAA was intended to cover rent-to-own agreements.
. It is understandable why Griffin prefers the GSISA to the RPAA. The RPAA specifically limits damages in a class action to a maximum of $500,000. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6908(b). No such limit is found in the GSISA.
. It might initially seem that Griffin was "sandbagged” by the trial court on this issue. Griffin had originally included a claim under the RPAA, but abandoned that theory after a pre-trial conference with the trial court. The trial court has recently issued a decision in a similar case holding the GSISA to be the relevant law. Had Griffin been mislead by the trial court, there might well be equitable reasons to allow Griffin to amend the complaint. However, Griffin has not argued this. Moreover, it is obvious that the GSISA-RPAA issue was still alive as RAC continued to press its preliminary objections on the matter. Finally, the trial court (a different judge from the pre-trial judge) rendered its decision on the basis of the GSISA-RPAA issue. Clearly Griffin knew the issue was alive, yet chose not to argue it.
. In fact, this information is provided on the agreement form.
. Once again, it must be noted that Griffin waived the argument regarding the ability to proceed under some other law. Thus, Griffin has not sought nor is entitled to relief on this.