Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiff had been given the opportunity to consult an attorney before accepting
• stating that the issue of unconscionability is a question of law, “and the test is to be made as of the time the contract was made”
• noting that franchisee did not suffer potential loss of his investment because Dairy Mart repurchased inventory; termination provision was not obscurely worded or buried in fine print and there was no deception in Dairy Mart’s introductory brochure
• stating that “[t]his basic common law approach, applied to statutory statements of policy, permits a selective application of those principles expressed in a statute that reasonably should govern situations to which the statute does not apply explicitly”
• implying duty of good faith in franchise agreement providing for termination upon 90 days’ notice
• extending the Uniform Commercial Code standard of unconscionability by analogy to dealings between a franchisee and franchisor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).