Legal Opinion

Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided May 24, 1967PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Resource Management Co. v. Weston RanchUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Intermeat, Inc. v. American Poultry Incorporated and a & W FoodsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
  4. Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Gaskin v. Stumm Handel GmbHDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API