Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by JesicajMillsap (talk) to last revision by Lost Student) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=Supreme Court of Arizona | |||
|citation=184 Ariz. 82 (1995); 907 P.2d 51 | |||
|date=November 21, 1995 | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
|appealed_from=Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A | |||
}} | |||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=unanimous | |||
|opinion_order=1 | |||
|written_by=FELDMAN | |||
|joined_by= | |||
}} | |||
'''Facts''': Elizabeth Maxwell purchased a solar water heater from a door-to-door salesman for $6,512. They financed it through Fidelity at 19.5% interest. The heater was never installed, therefore never worked, and was eventually condemned and was removed by order of the city of Phoenix. Still, Maxwell made payments for three and one half years. In 1988 Maxwell borrowed an additional $800 from Fidelity, who combined the old amount with the new one to bring the balance to $6,976. In total, Maxwell would pay about $17,000 (including interest) for a non-functioning water heater and an $800 loan. Maxwell brought a declaratory judgment action seeking judgment that the contract was unenforceable due to unconscionability. | '''Facts''': Elizabeth Maxwell purchased a solar water heater from a door-to-door salesman for $6,512. They financed it through Fidelity at 19.5% interest. The heater was never installed, therefore never worked, and was eventually condemned and was removed by order of the city of Phoenix. Still, Maxwell made payments for three and one half years. In 1988 Maxwell borrowed an additional $800 from Fidelity, who combined the old amount with the new one to bring the balance to $6,976. In total, Maxwell would pay about $17,000 (including interest) for a non-functioning water heater and an $800 loan. Maxwell brought a declaratory judgment action seeking judgment that the contract was unenforceable due to unconscionability. | ||
'''Procedural History''': Trial Court ruled that doctrine of novation barred Maxwell's claim of unconscionability. Appellate Court affirmed. | '''Procedural History''': Trial Court ruled that doctrine of novation barred Maxwell's claim of unconscionability. Appellate Court affirmed. | ||
'''Issue''': Does the second contract (1988 loan) bar Maxwell's claim of unconscionability regarding the first loan? | '''Issue''': Does the second contract (1988 loan) bar Maxwell's claim of unconscionability regarding the first loan? | ||
'''Holding''': No. If the old contract is found unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, then the new and basically identical contract would also be unenforceable. | '''Holding''': No. If the old contract is found unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, then the new and basically identical contract would also be unenforceable. | ||
Line 10: | Line 23: | ||
'''Judgment''': Reversed and remanded to trial court to determine if the original contract was invalid. | '''Judgment''': Reversed and remanded to trial court to determine if the original contract was invalid. | ||
Revision as of 13:26, August 31, 2020
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. | |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
---|---|
Citation | 184 Ariz. 82 (1995); 907 P.2d 51 |
Date decided | November 21, 1995 |
Appealed from | Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1" !unanimous |written by FELDMAN |- Facts: Elizabeth Maxwell purchased a solar water heater from a door-to-door salesman for $6,512. They financed it through Fidelity at 19.5% interest. The heater was never installed, therefore never worked, and was eventually condemned and was removed by order of the city of Phoenix. Still, Maxwell made payments for three and one half years. In 1988 Maxwell borrowed an additional $800 from Fidelity, who combined the old amount with the new one to bring the balance to $6,976. In total, Maxwell would pay about $17,000 (including interest) for a non-functioning water heater and an $800 loan. Maxwell brought a declaratory judgment action seeking judgment that the contract was unenforceable due to unconscionability.
Procedural History: Trial Court ruled that doctrine of novation barred Maxwell's claim of unconscionability. Appellate Court affirmed.
Issue: Does the second contract (1988 loan) bar Maxwell's claim of unconscionability regarding the first loan?
Holding: No. If the old contract is found unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, then the new and basically identical contract would also be unenforceable.
Reasons: Valid novation requires a previously enforceable debt.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded to trial court to determine if the original contract was invalid.