Case Brief Ashleigh Diehl
MANGT 525 Commercial Law and Project Procurement
Professor William H Volz

Case Name: Jones v Star Credit Corp
Court Delivering Opinion: Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County
Citation No. 59 Misc 2d 189 (1969)

Facts: On August 31st, 1965, the Jones’ (welfare recipients) purchased a home freezer unit from a Shop at Home Services, Inc representative for the price of $900. After taxes and time credit charges, credit life insurance, and credit property insurance were added to the price, the total came to $1234.80. At the time of the trial, the Jones’ had paid $619.88 and still owed $819.81. The retail price of the freezer was also determined at trial to be $300.

The defendant argues that the contract on June 15th, 1966 is a financing contract and not a sales contract. The finance agreement states” Refinance of Freezer A/x #6766 and Food A/c #56788”. This agreement requests for refinancing and signed by the seller (Star Credit Corp) and purchaser (Jones’) The June 15th, 1966 contract is exactly the same as the original Aug 31st, 1965 contract and constitutes a novation and replacement of the original contract.

Plaintiff/Appellant’s Contention [Clifton Jones et al.]: That they have amply compensated the defendant for the purchase of the freezer unit.

Defendant/Appellee’s Contention [Star Credit Corp.]: That the June 15th, 1966 contract was a financing agreement and not a sales contract.

Issue: Was the plaintiff taken advantage of by the Shop at Home, Inc. representative when being sold the freezer unit for $900 when the retail value was only $300? Would this extreme price difference be considered unconscionable by law?

Decision: Yes, the $600 difference between the selling price and retail value is enough evidence to conclude that the contract is unconscionable. In addition, the credit charges exceeded