Industralease Automated & Scientific Equipment Corp. v. R.M.E. Enterprises, Inc.
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
58 A.D.2d 482 (1977)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
R.M.E. Enterprises, Inc., Max Evans, and Irene Evans (defendants) owned a picnic grove. On February 24, 1971, the defendants executed an agreement with Clean Air Controls, Inc. (Clean Air), which provided that the defendants would lease two incinerators from Clean Air. On May 13, 1971, a representative of Clean Air and a representative of Industralease Automated & Scientific Equipment Corp. (Industralease) (plaintiff) required the defendants to sign a new lease in order to obtain their equipment, stating that the prior lease was no longer effective. The new lease included a disclaimer of express and implied warranties. On May 14, 1971, Industralease delivered and installed the incinerators. The incinerators never worked. Industralease later brought suit seeking $17,936.76 in payments due under the lease. The defendants argued that the disclaimer was unconscionable. The trial court rejected this argument but instructed the jury to determine whether Industralease made express warranties that had been breached. The jury found that Industralease had made express warranties regarding the incinerators and that Industralease had breached those warranties. The jury therefore found in favor of the defendants. Industralease appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hopkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
