LTV Energy Products Co. v. Northern States Contracting Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that unconscionability doctrine “requires the party invoking [it] to show both an absence of meaningful choice in the contract formation process and contract terms unreasonably favoring the other party, i.e., procedural and substantive unconscionability”
• including as types of evidence proving objective surprise “the parties’ prior course of dealing and the number of written confirmations that they exchanged, industry custom and the conspicuousness of the term”
• stating that problem was eventually repaired but “time may have been ... essential” where, in a bridge construction project, “endless delays in effecting repair or replacement may become so costly that they deprive [a contractor] of the ‘substantial value of its bargain’ ”
• “Factors bearing on this issue [of ‘surprise’] [may] include the parties’ prior course of dealing and the number of written confirmations that they exchanged, industry custom and the conspicuousness of the term.”
• noting divergent opinions concerning appropriate test for “hardship”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).