Jones v - as well as the value of the item compared to the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jones v. Star Credit Corp. NY Sup Ct (1969) p. 409 J. Wachtler FACTS: P’s (who are on welfare)agreed to purchase a freezer for $900 from a salesman from Your Shop At Home Service, Inc. After taxes, and other charges the price was over $1,400. The value of the freezer was determined to be $300. The P filed suit claiming the sale was unconscionable. ISSUE: Whether the meaning of § 2-302 of the UCC protects consumers against overpricing by unconscionable merchants. HELD: Yes. The very limited financial situation of the P. was considered,
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: as well as the value of the item compared to the price charged. the value disparity itself leads to the felt conclusion that knowing advantage was taken of the plaintiffs. RULE: Where there is evidence that a merchant has taken advantage of a consumer through overpricing, it is unconscionable as a matter of law and is governed by the UCC 2-302. The ct ruled out the unconscionable provisions in the contract (the price)....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online