finding that, although a contract must be definite as to price, it is just as well-established that parties may make a binding contract where the price is not stated exactly
How later courts described this case
- finding that, although a contract must be definite as to price, it is just as well-established that parties may make a binding contract where the price is not stated exactly
- contracts will be enforced where "the agreed price, though not specifically stated, is easily ascertainable by reference to some extrinsic standard"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Stephenson, J.,
dissenting. I concur in the overruling of the first assignment of error. I would, however, sustain the second and third assignments of error, reverse, and remand for a determination of damages pursuant to Section 1640, Title 15, U.S. Code. I view as palpably erroneous, the conclusion in the majority opinion that “actual” damage is necessarily equal to the increase in the annual percentage rate since such damages, under Subsection (a)(1) of Section 1640 are recoverable only if ap-pellees can establish a causal connection between inaccurate disclosure and their injury by demonstrating that they relied on the inaccurate disclosure and thereby were effectively prevented from obtaining better credit terms elsewhere.
McCoy
v.
Salem Mtge. Co.
(E.D. Mich. 1976), 74 F.R.D. 8 , and
Vickers
v.
Home Federal S. & L. Assn. of East Rochester
(1978), 62 A.D. 2d 1171 , 404 N.Y.Supp. 2d 201. If appellees cannot establish the required causal nexus, they would still be entitled to recover the statutory penalty, costs and attorney fees embodied in the statute.