From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steffenauer v. Mytelka Rose, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 24, 1966
216 A.2d 585 (N.J. 1966)

Summary

applying the majority rule to facts almost identical to those at bar

Summary of this case from Petersen v. Philco Finance Corporation

Opinion

Argued December 20 and 21, 1965 —

Decided January 24, 1966.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Mr. Samuel J. Davidson argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. Davidson, on the brief; Mr. Cyril J. McCauley, attorney)

Mr. Ira A. Levy argued the cause for respondent B-W Acceptance Corporation ( Mr. Levy, on the brief; Messrs. Gallanter Levy, attorneys).


The opinion of the court was delivered


Plaintiff appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. The trial court's opinion is reported in 87 N.J. Super. 506 ( Ch. Div. 1965). We certified the appeal before the Appellate Division acted upon it.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the trial court. We add a word, however, with respect to plaintiff's emphasis upon the fact that the so-called "credit service charge" of $2,730, which defendant's agent described in his affidavit as "7% add-on," actually averages out at 14% per year on the unpaid balance. This is true, and if plaintiff had said that he agreed to pay that additional sum of money for the purchase on time because he was misled into believing the figure amounted to a charge of only 7% per year on the unpaid balance, a different case would be before us. The use of 7%, with or without the unrevealing words "add-on," obviously tends to conceal the severity of the charge itself and we should not be understood to find representations of that kind to be of no significance. The point here is that plaintiff does not claim he was deceived. His sole contention is that the transaction constituted a "loan" to him and that on that basis there was a usurious charge. For the reasons given by the trial court, we agree the transaction was a sale, and hence beyond the general usury statute, N.J.S.A. 31:1-1.

Affirmed. No costs.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and HANEMAN — 6.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Steffenauer v. Mytelka Rose, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 24, 1966
216 A.2d 585 (N.J. 1966)

applying the majority rule to facts almost identical to those at bar

Summary of this case from Petersen v. Philco Finance Corporation

In Steffenauer v. Mytelka and Rose, Inc., 46 N.J. 299 (1966) it was held that a transaction in which plaintiff purchased dry cleaning equipment under an installment contract was a sale, and, that even though a credit service charge exceeding 6% was made, the usury statute did not apply.

Summary of this case from Public Acceptance Corp. v. Taylor
Case details for

Steffenauer v. Mytelka Rose, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN STEFFENAUER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MYTELKA ROSE, INC., D.M. F.R.…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 24, 1966

Citations

216 A.2d 585 (N.J. 1966)
216 A.2d 585

Citing Cases

Tri-County Sav. Loan v. Comm'r of Banking

The distinction is one which is well established in law and has been articulated by our courts on several…

Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Saul v. Midlantic National Bank/South, 240 N.J.Super. 62, 572 A.2d 650 (App.Div. 1990).Steffenauer v. Mytelka…