Third, on September 27, 1982, PSI Cosmetics (defendant), leased a vehicle from Barco Auto (plaintiff). PSI stated that two months later the engine began to smoke and was towed to an authorized dealer. The dealer took over three months to repair a blown motor. The defendants continued making their payments, even though, they had no use of the vehicle. Mr. Golumbia was advised after 300 to 600 miles, he should have the vehicle serviced (retorqued). Before this happened, the vehicles’ motor blew up again and was towed to Barco Auto. Because of this, Golumbia supposedly missed a business meeting that eventually cost him the loss of a $40,000 contract, which PSI would file a counterclaim for. The plaintiff lease form has many safeguards to insulate itself.
…show more content…
The plaintiff filed for summary judgement. In addition, implied warranties of merchantability and of particular use are apparently disclaimed. In Barco Auto v. PSI Cosmetics, 478 N.Y.S. 2d 505 (1984) the issue at hand is, whether a lessor’s disclaimer of all warranties in an automobile lease is contracted when a vehicle is used for business purposes quits functioning within a short period of time. Although, there are several cases that have applied to Article 2 of the U.C.C. pertaining to leases; Article 2 can be applied to typical sales, but to apply Article 2 to a lease it needs to be “placed along a spectrum measuring willingness to depart from the sale construct." In the “Marquette Law Review” author Lee A. Pizzimenti states that “It is unlikely that the party with inferior bargaining power will recognize and enforce his right to avoid an unconscionable contract” (p. 151). The court found that the defense of unconscionability is an affirmative
The plaintiff filed for summary judgement. In addition, implied warranties of merchantability and of particular use are apparently disclaimed. In Barco Auto v. PSI Cosmetics, 478 N.Y.S. 2d 505 (1984) the issue at hand is, whether a lessor’s disclaimer of all warranties in an automobile lease is contracted when a vehicle is used for business purposes quits functioning within a short period of time. Although, there are several cases that have applied to Article 2 of the U.C.C. pertaining to leases; Article 2 can be applied to typical sales, but to apply Article 2 to a lease it needs to be “placed along a spectrum measuring willingness to depart from the sale construct." In the “Marquette Law Review” author Lee A. Pizzimenti states that “It is unlikely that the party with inferior bargaining power will recognize and enforce his right to avoid an unconscionable contract” (p. 151). The court found that the defense of unconscionability is an affirmative