Court Opinion

ID: 9727889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:52:09.643953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.137621
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(concurring). Given the uncertain facts of this case, I discern no basis to conclude that *257Hall had "no sensible alternative" but to pay $161.91 for the washer/dryer, or that, on any other basis, $161.91 is "nominal."
Tracing the factors mentioned by the majority, see majority op. at 255, we see that this record reveals very little information about: (1) the original price of the goods; (2) the fair market value of the goods nineteen months later; and (3) the relationship between the option price and the original price or the fair market value. In fact, although we do know the total rental payments, even the relationship between the option price and the rental payments remains very much in doubt without information about what percentage of rental went to the maintenance and other ancillary services for which Hall and Rent-A-Center contracted.
Even using Hall's estimate that "a washer and dryer should cost no more than approximately $600," see id. at 247, the record reveals nothing further about: (1) how much less than $600 this washer/dryer would have cost; and (2) how much this washer/dryer was worth after nineteen months (even if worth as much as $600 originally). Without this information, as well as information about the cost of new and used washer/dryers, comments on Hall's "sensible alternatives" are purely speculative. Indeed, depending on facts absent from this record, paying $161.91 for this nineteen month old washer/dryer might have been a most foolish alternative.
Nevertheless, I concur in the result because, unlike the majority, I believe that the record adequately supports the trial court's conclusion: "On its face, as modified, the contract appears to indicate that upon payment of 21 installments of rent Ms. Hall *258gained ownership and the transaction is clearly a consumer sale ...."