· 5/1/1981
Musil v. Hendrich
Citations
- 627 P.2d 367
- 6 Kan. App. 2d 196
- 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 432
- 1981 Kan. App. LEXIS 287
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming dismissal a Kansas Consumer Protect Act claim, because there was “no evidence” that the seller of a product knew at the time of sale there was a defect, which is “required by” the Kansas Consumer Protection Act’s section addressing unconscionability
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Prager, Abbott, Brazil
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.