Court Opinion

ID: 9709881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:56:45.298343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.307333
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the reasoning for the reversal and remand for a jury trial on the plaintiffs’ conversion claim.
I write separately to distance myself from the dicta about the unconscionability of the oral lease that exchanged the use of land for the care of cattle. That lease is not a legal issue in this lawsuit, and will not be in the jury trial for conversion of cattle.
The trial court’s reference to “unconscio-nability” was simply a reasoning process about the credibility of the defendants’ position. The trial court merely inferred that the defendants’ testimony was unbelievable because their claimed oral terms were so unreasonable. The trial court was free to make that credibility inference without using the UCC law on unconscionability. On remand, the jury will be free, as well, to make a similar assessment of credibility without instruction on the legal doctrine of unconscionability.
LEVINE, J., concurs.