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

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14
Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided March 6, 1989·No. Case No. 88-148 AP (County Court Case No. 87-6661CC05)·Published

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

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

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 14 (Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Esquire International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Capital Associates, Inc. v. Hudgens
455 So. 2d 651 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)