Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Esquire International, Inc.

Florida Circuit Courts

Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Esquire International, Inc.

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1989

DocketCase No. 88-148 AP (County Court Case No. 87-6661CC05)

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14 (Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Esquire International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Esquire International, Inc., 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Within the record provided on appeal, which does not contain a transcript there is nothing to sufficiently indicate that the judgment of the trial court was in error. We assume that evidence was presented supporting the trial judge’s finding of unconscionability, and we assume the plaintiff had the opportunity to present evidence as required by [15]*15Capital Associates Inc. v Hudgens, 455 So.2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). He found the contract itself unconscionable because it allowed the lessor to obtain possession of the leased equipment but did not require the value of the returned equipment as a credit. The judge, within his discretion and in conformity to the Uniform Commercial Code Sec. 672.302(2), refused to enforce the contract.

We affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Within the record provided on appeal, which does not contain a transcript there is nothing to sufficiently indicate that the judgment of the trial court was in error. We assume that evidence was presented supporting the trial judge’s finding of unconscionability, and we assume the plaintiff had the opportunity to present evidence as required by [15]*15Capital Associates Inc. v Hudgens, 455 So.2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). He found the contract itself unconscionable because it allowed the lessor to obtain possession of the leased equipment but did not require the value of the returned equipment as a credit. The judge, within his discretion and in conformity to the Uniform Commercial Code Sec. 672.302(2), refused to enforce the contract.

We affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dana-commercial-credit-corp-v-esquire-international-inc-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack