v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 427, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992) (Scalia, L, dissenting) ("If possible, [courts] should avoid construing the statute in a way that produces ... absurd results.”). 16 . Notwithstanding the enactment of New § 1-201(37), some courts continue to apply the Percentage Tests to determine whether the option price contained in a purported lease agreement is nominal. See, e.g., Triplex Marine, 258 B.R. at 670 (option price representing 10% of the original purchase price of the leased goods and 5% of aggregate rental payments made by the debtor held to be nominal); In re Super Feeders, Inc., 236 B.R. 267, 270-71 (Bankr.D.Neb.1999) (option price that is 5% of original property cost and 3.6% of total rental payments found to be nominal); Wakefield, 217 B.R. at 971 (<HOLDING>). See generally Dicker & Compo, 7 Am.
holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that option amount is nominal where it is 10 of original equipment cost holding that factors cited by the debtor  including the fact that present value of total rental payments exceeds the equipments cost and the agreement contains net lease provisions  do not establish that the lessor relinquished its reversionary interest holding that option prices contained in two purported lease agreements are nominal where they constitute 10 of original equipment cost and total payments exceed the initial cost of the equipment under agreement 1  by approximately 50  and under agreement 2  by approximately 29 holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate