26 N.Y.2d 396 (1970)
A class action is inappropriate when based solely on a similarity in contract form across different transactions with unrelated sellers, even if the same finance company is the assignee of those contracts.
Summary
This case addresses whether a class action can be maintained by purchasers under retail sales contracts seeking penalties for violations of the Retail Installment Sales Act, specifically regarding the font size of printed contract terms. The New York Court of Appeals held that a class action was not appropriate in this instance because the plaintiffs’ claims lacked sufficient commonality beyond the use of a similar contract form. The court emphasized that individual contracts with different sellers, even if assigned to the same finance company, do not create a common interest sufficient to justify a class action.
Facts
Plaintiffs Hall and Bussell separately entered into retail installment contracts with different sellers for purchasing carpeting. They alleged that parts of their contracts were printed in type smaller than the legally required eight-point size, violating the Retail Installment Sales Act. They sought to represent a class of individuals who had signed similar contracts subsequently purchased by Coburn Corporation of America. The contracts included credit service charges, credit life insurance, and property insurance, significantly increasing the total cost beyond the initial purchase price of the carpets.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs initiated class action suits seeking recovery of the statutory penalty for the alleged violation of the Retail Installment Sales Act. The lower courts allowed the class actions to proceed. The case reached the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s decisions, holding that the class actions were inappropriate.
Issue(s)
Whether purchasers who entered separate retail installment contracts with different sellers, based on a common contract form and assigned to the same finance company, have a sufficient common interest to maintain a class action for alleged violations of the Retail Installment Sales Act.
Holding
No, because separate contracts with different sellers, even when using a similar form and assigned to the same finance company, do not establish a sufficient commonality of interest among the purchasers to justify a class action under CPLR 1005(a).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claims lacked the necessary commonality to justify a class action. The court emphasized that