Case Brief: Chastain v. Koonce and the Issue of Unconscionability

-

 


Citation:

Chastain v. Koonce, 700 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. 1985)

Facts:

In 1979, Charles Koonce and J.P. Stroud decided to sell lots of property on their farm. Koonce and Stroud claimed that some of these plots were for residential use, and others were for commercial use. The Chastains, along with other residential buyers, decided to purchase plots for residential use. After the purchases were made, a company decided to buy a plot of land next door to the Chastains. This plot was one that was claimed to be for residential use only. After several unsuccessful complaints made by the Chastains and fellow residents, the issue was taken to court.

Procedural History:

The plaintiffs, Chastains and residents, took the issue to court. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs based on jury findings of unconscionable actions. However, the court of appeals reversed the trial court judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no evidence of unconscionability and refused to consider whether the purchasers were consumers within the meaning of the DTPA (Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act).

Issue:

Can the plaintiffs legally recover from the land purchases under the basis of unconscionability?

Rule:

Unconscionable action or course of action is defined by statute to describe an act which: A. Takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, or capacity of a person to a grossly unfair degree; or B. Results in a gross disparity between the value received and the consideration paid in a transaction involving the transfer of consideration.

Analysis:

There is no evidence that the plaintiffs were taken advantage of to a grossly unfair degree.

Conclusion:

Though the plaintiffs have standing to sue under the DTPA, the court of appeals' judgment affirms that there is no evidence of unconscionability. Petitioners' motion for rehearing is overruled.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scenario: Minnesota Law (w/ Case Briefs, Statute Explanation, and Table of Authorities)

-
Image
Scenario The managing partner at your Minnesota law firm wants you to research and provide information concerning a minor’s lack of capacity to enter into a binding contract. She wants you to locate the following three Minnesota cases, as well as a fourth Minnesota case on the matter. 1. Ramsey Cnty. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 853 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). 2. Winter v. Skoglund, 404 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1987). 3. O'Brien Ent. Agcy. v. Wolfgramm, 407 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). She also wants you to locate the following two statutes and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate concerning a minor’s lack of capacity. 1. MINN. STAT. ANN. § 645.45 (West 2016). 2. MINN. STAT. ANN. § 524.2-501 (West 2016). After you have located those four cases and two statutes, please provide one case brief for each case, for a total of four case briefs. Also, please provide an explanation for each statute. Minnesota Case Briefs and Statute Breakdown Citation: Ramsey Cnty. v. Guardi
Read more

Attorney vs. Paralegal: Rules of Ethics & Professional Obligations

-
Image
Ethics for the Attorney and Paralegal The ethical foundation set in place for both attorneys and paralegals is an ever increasing matter of importance. Direct state regulation and regulation by state bar associations, like the ABA, continue to issue guidelines. Though their regulations and ethical obligations are very similar, the paralegal and the attorney vary slightly. For instance, paralegals are not directly regulated by the state, with the exception for California where it is required to meet specific educational requirements to be a practicing paralegal. The ethical codes and regulations that are set in place for attorneys indirectly affect the paralegal. For the most part, all states ethical codes are based directly off of the revised ABA canons: The Model Code for Professional Responsibility and the Model Rules for Professional Conduct . Lastly, even though paralegals are not being directly regulated does not mean that a violation of a rule governing attorneys will not have ne
Read more

Client Letter: King v. Sunny Days Resort

-
Image
  The Law Offices of Patrick, Swayze, and Zimmerman 751 Main Street Friendly, New Washington 00065 (200) 444-7778 • FAX 444-7678 • www.patricklaw.com October 15, 2021 Ms. Esther King 139 Main Street Friendly, NW 00065 Re: King v. Sunny Days Resort Dear Ms. King: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of your case and summarize the law with regard to the facts of your case. Our law office has decided to take your case since we believe that a bailment was created when your sunglasses were left at the front desk of the Sunny Days Resort. In order to determine whether or not a bailment was created, there are two elements that the court will apply to the facts of your case - possession and an intent to physically control your sunglasses were present at the time. Possession occurs when one has physical control over another’s property and an intent to exercise that control. In Morris v. Hamilton , possession occurred when Morris decided to physically take co
Read more