Pearson v. National Budgeting Systems, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 792, 297 N.Y.S.2d 59
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 6, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 792 (Pearson v. National Budgeting Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pearson v. National Budgeting Systems, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 792, 297 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Order entered on September 15, 1968 denying motion for a protective order unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the motion granted and .the notice is vacated. The plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages from defendant asserting a complaint based on section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code in that plaintiffs were induced to buy a refrigerator freezer at an “ unconscionable ” price within the meaning of .the said statute. The defendant, a finance company, purchased the said installment sales contract from the seller. Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code does not provide any damages to a party who enters into an unconscionable contract. This section gives the court [793]*793the power to refuse to enforce such an' unconscionable contract or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. The documents called for under the notice of inspection are neither material nor necessary to plaintiffs’ cause of action and their production would be an undue harassment of defendant. Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to grant the motion. Concur — Eager, J. P., Tilzer, Nunez, Rabin and Machen, JJ.

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

Related

Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
132 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Best v. United States National Bank
714 P.2d 1049 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986)
Galvin v. First National Monetary Corp.
624 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. New York, 1985)
Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. PSI Cosmetics, Inc.
125 Misc. 2d 68 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1984)
Korn v. Avis Rent-a-Car System, Inc.
8 Pa. D. & C.3d 640 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1977)
Vom Lehn v. Astor Art Galleries, Ltd.
86 Misc. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.2d 792, 297 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-national-budgeting-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1969.