Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1Per curiam
While the evidence clearly warrants a finding that the contract was unconscionable (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-302), we are of the opinion that plaintiff should recover its net cost for the refrigerator-freezer, plus a reasonable profit, in addition to. trucking and service charges necessarily incurred and reasonable finance charges.
The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered limited to an assessment of plaintiff’s damages and entry of judgment thereon.
Concur — Schwartzwald, Fanelli and Beckinella, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.
2Cited by25 opinions
- Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Resource Management Co. v. Weston RanchUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Intermeat, Inc. v. American Poultry Incorporated and a & W FoodsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2003
- Gaskin v. Stumm Handel GmbHDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.