Opinion ID: 1782808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unconscionable conduct

Text: Hurst argues that Sears' unconscionable conduct was established by special issue 5, which asked: Was the failure of defendant to secure a permit from the City of Fort Worth to install the heating and cooling unit in plaintiff's home, and to get the work inspected by city inspectors unconscionable action or course of action? Unconscionable action or course of action means an act or practice which, to a person's detriment takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of a person to a grossly unfair degree. Answer: It was unconscionable action or course of action. The court of appeals observed that Sears could not possibly have obtained the installation permit. A Fort Worth city ordinance restricts the issuance of installation permits to holders of valid mechanical and air conditioning licenses. These licenses are only issued to individuals, not business entities. Since Sears did not have a license, it could not obtain an installation permit. From these facts, the court of appeals concluded that as a matter of law, appellant's failure to do that which was impossible under the ordinance cannot be `unconscionable' conduct. 635 S.W.2d at 858. We reject the court of appeals conclusion for two reasons. First, it was possible to obtain an inspection and permit. Although Sears itself could not have obtained these services, its licensed installer was qualified to obtain them. Second, impossibility of performance does not, as a matter of law, preclude unconscionable conduct. For example, a person's failure to do the impossible could be unconscionable if he promised to perform services, knowing they were impossible to perform. The court of appeals was wrong in holding as a matter of law that Sears' conduct could not be unconscionable.