Rowe v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• un-conscionability doctrine is meant to deal with situations where there is “a significant disparity in bargaining power”
• “[C]ourts should be extremely reluctant to interpret an agreement as impliedly stating something the parties have neglected to specifically include .... [S]uch lack of foresight does not create rights or obligations.”
• “[A] party who asserts the existence of an implied-in-fact covenant bears a heavy burden.”
• “[A] party who asserts the existence of an implied-in-fact covenant bears a heavy burden.”
• “[A] party who asserts the existence of an implied-in-fact covenant bears a heavy burden.”
• “[A] party who asserts the existence of an implied-in-fact covenant bears a heavy burden.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).