(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the written agreement between Contractor Industries and Mrs. Zerr to construct a pool on her property effectively placed the burden of securing a building permit on Mrs. Zerr. Since Contractor Industries did not, and could not, perform its obligations under the contract, I conclude that they did not perfect a cause of action against Mrs. Zerr. Hence, plaintiff’s judgment should be reversed rather than reduced. I submit that the proper result in this case is reached by more thorough examination of appellant’s argument that, the written agreement notwithstanding, Contractor Industries was obliged to take the steps necessary to securing a building permit.1 Although this requires us to interpret the words, “Customer supplies permit,” rather rigorously against Contractor Industries, under the facts of the instant case I find such a strict interpretation to be warranted. On the other hand, this course does have the advantage of avoiding a dubious application of the concept of mitigation of damages which, as employed by the majority, leaves unexplained why Contractor Industries may not recover its out-of-pocket expenditure in purchasing the swimming pool for Mrs. Zerr from the wholesaler.2
*105First, it should be obvious that no reasonable interpretation of the phrase, “Customer supplies permit” would lead to the conclusion that either party assumed the risk that Crafton Borough might have an ordinance which made performance of the contract impossible. Hence, the non-existence of a proscription against front-yard swimming pools in Crafton Borough can only reasonably be construed as a condition,3 so that the duties of full performance under the contract should have been treated as discharged. See Murray on Contracts § 201 (1974). On the other hand, it would not be unreasonable for the contract to place the obligation to use best efforts to secure the requisite permit on one of the parties, or to allocate the cost of obtaining such a permit to the buyer. For the following reasons, I have concluded that while the cost of securing a permit may have been an expense for which Mrs. Zerr would have had to have paid, the contract did not require that Mrs. Zerr take the steps prerequisite to obtaining the permit. Procuring the permit, if possible, was Contractor Industries’ obligation, so that it must bear the consequential damages flowing from its failure to inquire about the borough’s regulations.
The important concept in interpretation of any contract is the objective manifestation of assent. Restatement, 2d § 2, Comment b (1973). The subjective meaning attached by either party to a form of words is not controlling on the scope of the agreement between the parties unless one party knows or has reason to know of a particular meaning attached by the party manifesting assent. Restatement of Contracts, Second § 226, Comment b. (Rev.Tent.Draft No. 107, 1973). Hence, while Mrs. Zerr indisputably took a substantial risk in not *106reading the written agreement, her failure to read the agreement does not make her susceptible to that interpretation Contractor Industries now prefers to attach to the words, “Customer supplies permit.” In other words, the objective manifestations of assent still control in determining the relative rights and duties of the parties. Although the use of greater specificity may have obtained the protection Contractor Industries now seeks, the language chosen did not unambiguously define the duties of the parties with respect to obtaining a permit, no more than it expressed whether the ability to obtain a permit was a condition or a promise.
Ordinarily, the obligation to procure a permit to build naturally and normally should fall on the builder, especially with respect to home improvements. His superior knowledge and expertise in all aspects of building, including its legal aspects, is the skill which he sells. In the ordinary case, if a builder's failure to get a permit prevents his timely completion of performance, it would be fair to say that he, rather than the property owner, is in breach. A home improvement buyer, in contrast, may not even know that a building permit is necessary, nor know the government agency from which it may be obtained. Thus, it is not surprising that the borough ordinance involved in the instant case placed the burden of obtaining the permit on the builder, Contractor Industries; and, it was Contractor Industries which the borough fined and ordered to remove the pool.4 Hence, the circumstances of this type of case, and the language of the ordinance involved herein, demonstrate that when the parties do not provide to the contrary, the builder should be required to obtain the permit. Because he may be reasonably expected to know that the buyer is relying upon him to do so, his failure to obtain *107a permit through a lack of diligence should be construed as a breach. In similar situations involving the sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-3155 imposes such an obligation on a seller by use of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.6 While such implied warranties of fitness may be excluded under Section 2-316 of the Code by general language, such language should be apt for the purpose and call the buyer’s attention to the fact that certain benefits which he reasonably expects to receive are being excluded. See J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 12-5 (1972). See also Fogel Refrigerator Co. v. Oteri, 10 D. & C.2d 511. Analogously, in non-Code cases, if one possessing expertise wishes to delegate responsibility under a contract for an aspect of performance with respect to which he has reason to know the other party is relying upon his skill and judgment, he must do so unambiguously. Therefore, if the instant language, “Customer supplies permit” is ambiguous, the obligation to take the necessary steps to secure a permit was not effectively shifted to Mrs. Zerr; and, Contractor Industries’ assembly of the pool without a permit was a breach.
The law universally recognizes the principle that the language of a contract must be construed strictly against the party responsible for it. 8 P.L.E., Contracts § 146 (1971). This general principle is even more forcefully applied when the contract is reduced to writing by a party possessing special knowledge with respect to the subject matter of the contract. Mowry v. McWherter, 365 *108Pa. 232, 74 A.2d 154 (1950). See also Murray on Contracts § 119 (1974). In determining whether an ambiguity exists, the court may consider whether more precise language would have put the matter beyond reasonable question. Celley v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ins., 229 Pa.Super. 475, 482, 324 A.2d 430 (1974). As the Restatement, 2d § 232 provides:
“In choosing among the reasonable meanings of a promise or agreement or a term thereof, that meaning is generally preferred which operates against the party who supplies the words or from whom a writing otherwise proceeds.”.
The meaning which Mrs. Zerr attaches to the language, “Customer supplies permit,” is that she would have to pay the costs of procuring the permit, not that she would actually have to procure it herself. This interpretation is not unreasonable given the fact of Contractor Industries’ aforementioned superior knowledge, and the fact that the ordinance places the burden of obtaining a permit on the builder. But, Mrs. Zerr’s interpretation becomes all the more persuasive when the intended course of performance, revealed in the interrogatories, is considered. See Uniform Commercial Code § 2-208(1); Murray on Contracts § 123 (1974). The contract also stated, “Customer supplies electrical.” However, Contractor Industries admitted that this did not mean that Mrs. Zerr would have to literally provide the electrical wiring, etc., necessary for running a water pump and filter; it apparently only meant that the costs of the necessary electrical work, to be done by Contractor Industries, were not necessarily contemplated as part of the contract price. Obviously, the necessary electrical work was another aspect of the contract concerning which Contractor Industries had special skill and expertise, and they admitted that “Customer supplies electrical” was not intended to be literally construed. Since that is the case, Mrs. Zerr was entitled to presume that *109“Customer supplies permit” was also not to be literally construed.
Although the meaning attributed to “Customer supplies permit” by either party is reasonable, the aforementioned sound principles of interpretation and construction persuade that Mrs. Zerr’s interpretation must prevail. As Mrs. Zerr testified, when she agreed to purchase the pool from Contractor Industries, it was her understanding that Contractor Industries would take care of everything, leaving her only to pay the contract price. Since Contractor Industries was the expert in this field, Mrs. Zerr’s expectation was manifestly reasonable. Hence, Contractor Industries breached the contract when it failed to use its best efforts to obtain a building permit, and it may not recover either its out-of-pocket expenses or lost profits herein. On the other hand, since Mrs. Zerr apparently only pleaded her expenses in dismantling the pool as a set-off, she cannot recover those expenses either. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment entered for Contractor Industries, and order that judgment be entered for defendant, Mrs. Zerr.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.. Appellant raised this argument to rebut the assertion that she was primarily at fault for the illegal construction of the pool on her property.
. There is absolutely no evidence that Contractor Industries could have resold the swimming pool to another customer, yet the majority denies recovery for the expense of purchasing the pool despite the fact that the burden of showing such an opportunity to *105mitigate rested with the defendant, Mrs. Zerr. See, e. g., D. Dobbs, Remedies § 3.7 at p. 189 (1973).
. 3A Corbin on Contracts §§ 632-33 (1960); Restatement of Contracts, 2d § 251, Comment d (Rev.Tent Draft Nos. 1-7, 1973). [Hereinafter Restatement, 2d (1973)].
. Mrs. Zerr dismantled the pool at the borough’s request when Contractor Industries appealed the fine and refused to remove the pool.
. Act of April 6, 1953, P.L. 3, § 2-315, 12A P.S. § 2-315 (1970).
. Although neither party has argued that the applicable law in the instant case is embodied in the Uniform Commercial Code, 12A P.S. § 1-101 et seq. (1970), presumably because they conceived the swimming pool to be a “fixture” of the type to which the Code does not apply, [But see U.C.C., 12A P.S. § 2-105(1) (1970)], the Code is persuasive authority in the field of contract law in general. See, e. g., Elderkin v. Gaster, 447 Pa. 118, 288 A.2d 771 (1973); Hoffman v. Misericordia Hospital of Phila., 439 Pa. 501, 267 A.2d 867 (1970).