Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1990No. 54612-6Published

1DissentBrachtenbach, J.

(dissenting)—The trial court should be affirmed. The contract is unconscionable. American Nursery Products, Inc., should not be allowed to avoid liability for its breach of contract resulting from its conduct in violation of federal and state law regulating its use of Ridomil.

It is "extremely difficult to articulate an operational definition of unconscionability." Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc., 86 Wn.2d 256, 259, 544 P.2d 20 (1975). The term is not defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. The difficulty affirmatively built into the legal concept may, in part, account for the majority's…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1982
  3. LaMon v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  5. Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1975

24 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