Norris v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama December 16, 1988

Norris v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., 539 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 1988)

1988 Ala. LEXIS 693; 1988 WL 147141

Beatty, Torbert, Maddox, Houston, Steagall, Jones, Almon, Shores, Adams

Opinion of the Court

BEATTY, Justice.

Affirmed on the authority of Casey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 531 So.2d 846 (Ala. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. JONES, J., dissents. ALMON, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., not sittini-

Dissenting Opinion

JONES, Justice

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. To affirm summarily on the authority of Casey overlooks this Court’s authority and duty to review the issue here presented: Whether an annual interest rate of 39% on the balance of the purchase price of a used automobile — a consumer product — is illegal under the test of unconscionability. Lessons of history should not be so cavalierly ignored. Every known civilized society has found it necessary, in the public interest, to regulate the natural greed , of the money lender.

Reference

Full Case Name: Marie J. NORRIS and Annie Echols v. STEEL CITY OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC.
Status: Published