Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, in a case pre-dating the \Closing Fee\ Statute, \Procurement Fee\ was not an \unauthorized fee\ or \unconscionable\ under the SCCPC but, rather, was an element of the negotiated price of the vehicle
• finding that procurement fee was not a charge allowable under section 37-2-202, but was permissible because it was an element of the negotiated purchase price of the vehicle charged to all customers and, therefore, was not an additional fee
• involving an unconscionability analysis of a contract that did not contain an arbitration provision
• stating unconscionability is the “absence of meaningful choice on part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them”
• unconscionability is absence of meaningful choice on part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions together with terms that are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them
• unconscionability is the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions together with terms that are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).