An important factor in contracts is that each side be aware of their responsibilities and rights under the agreement. As long as both parties know the terms of the contract it can be assumed that the contract will be impartial, or at least to the point that the contract is agreeable. This is essential for a contract to be enforceable. One defense available to attempt to void a contract is that the contract was unconscionable. Unconscionability in contracts is defined as giving one party, generally the one that drafts the contract, unreasonable and favorable conditions. In order for a contract to be deemed unconscionable it must be determined that no reasonable person would agree to the terms and conditions present in the contract. In the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. case, Williams purchases multiple items and agreed to pay them off all simultaneously, as if it was one purchase. Once Williams defaulted, the company tried to repossess all of the items as none of them were paid off in full. Williams’ case argued that the contract was unconscionable and that the store was well aware that Williams’ annual salary was $2,616. Regardless of Williams’ financial situation, I believe that this contract should be enforceable as the agreement is not unconscionable. First of all I do not think that it is the store’s responsibility to determine if Williams can pay for the items he purchased on credit. This responsibility can be traced to the credit card company issuing Williams a credit limit he could not afford. If Williams purchased the items on store credit then the responsibility can be placed solely on Williams. Williams should be aware of how much Williams can afford to spend. Williams should also have waited to purchase addi... ... middle of paper ... ... with adequate funds to make the payments would have no issue with the payment plan provided by the contract. Since some reasonable consumers would have no problem with the payment plan provided by the contract, the contract should not deemed unconscionable, and thus should be enforceable. In the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. case the contract should remain enforceable because the financial responsibility of the consumer should fall on the consumer alone. Williams should not have purchased more items than Williams could afford. The contract was not overly bias favoring Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., and a reasonable consumer would agree to the terms and conditions of the contract, therefore the contract was not unconscionable. The contract between Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture should be enforceable, the defense of unconscionability is not applicable.
However, the fourth element, which is "legal object," may not be satisfied between Sam and the chain store because there was nothing in writing, nothing was “drawn.” An oral promise would make the contract invalid if the completion of that promise will take more than a year from the date of agreement. However, if the chain store has written proof confirming Sam 's promise, for example, advertisements, invoices that the store only prepares in the regular course of business after an oral promise for a product delivery has been made, a court may consider Sam 's oral promise legally binding. Then it would be considered a "primary obligation" (since there was a debt incurred in anticipation of the sale of his invention at their stores). In that event, the contract does not need to be in writing to be enforced since primary obligations are not within the statute of frauds. So if the chain store does not get their 1000
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
Even though consumers have great protection rights in Australian Customer Law, they have to understand that this law is designed to provide consumers and sellers a fair go. Therefore, consumers also have to be aware that they will not be protected if they are careless and make unreasonable demands.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
If the elements of a contract did exist between these parties, there could still be some possible reasons why a contract might not be valid based on facts not present in the scenario. For example, if Sam was a minor at the time he made the agreement with the chain store, the contract would not be valid because of contractual capacity. Per the law a contract by minors is voidable by the minor itself. Other reasons that would deem a contract invalid are lack of genuine assent, which means that the accepting party entered the agreement under fraudulent circumstances, duress, undue influence and/or misrepresentation. Moreover the validity of the contract could be hindered due to lack of proper form. This typically refers to
They consulted Stan Salesman. The representative, Mr. Salesman, allowed this customer to test drive several cars. Eventually they’re brought a vibrant blue four door sedan. Once presented and mutually accepted, consideration is taken to weigh the benefits. Jim and Laura ask Mr. Salesman to hold the car. He complied, only under the condition of a $100-dollar deposit. Parties with capacity to enter agreements have done so only when each has given objective manifestations of their intent to do so. “Objective manifestations of intent might be signatures on written agreements, handshakes, oral commitments to be bound, or even, under some circumstances, performance of obligations of agreements (Fetter-Harrott, A., 2008).” They made a verbal agreement to return the next morning, clearly stated, their acceptance, and redeem $100 deposit taken to hold the blue four door sedan. Once the exchange concludes both parties must develop terms and conditions, that uphold the law and standards sought after. Ending, with clear consent and signature. Without any of the information above, the contract is null and void. The sales representative held a specific car for Jim and Laura, under the conditions of a $100, refundable
I would be apprehensive of doing business with Marshall in the future for a couple of reasons. The first reason is Marshall’s business tactics. In this particular case there was an “implied contract.” An implied contract is “a contract not created by express words but inferred by the courts either from the conduct of the parties or from some special relationship existing between them” (Law, 2015, p. 1). Marshall never stated how much product he wanted and how much he wanted to pay; yet he had a minor, who had no authority in the business, sign a contract to set a price scale for guaranteed continued business.
There are many Ohio Revised Codes that govern different aspects of unconscionable contracts. Some are as general as ORC 1302.15 that explains that a court can void a contract if it finds it to be unconscionable, or it is able to void only the parts it finds to be unconscionable (LAWriter, ORC 1302.15). There are more detailed Codes that address certain types of businesses and what is considered unconscionable in their specific trade. An example is the ORC 1345.031 that has to do with providing a residential mortgage. It dictates what the supplier of the mortgage cannot do with regard to a consumer that is attempting to acquire or already acquired loan on a residential mortgage (LAWriter, ORC 1345.031).
When it comes to contracts, there are certain elements or requirements, which need to be met in order for the contract to be valid. Defined, a contract is “an agreement that can be enforced in a court; formed by two or more parties who agree to perform or refrain from performing some act now or in the future” (Hollowell & Miller, 2014, p. 110). With contract law, there is the enforcement of promises made between two parties, even if made in private. Additionally if a promise is made, there is the possibility of the obligation falling into a moral liability rather than a legal liability. All in all, when it comes to business agreements, contract laws will apply to avoid any possible problems that may arise.
If there is, then the type of liability arising is also important. Generally, there are two varieties of liability which Is strict liability that is liability arising due to a state of affairs without the party at breach necessarily being at fault and liability for negligence liability arising due to fault. The courts have a tendency of requiring the party relying on the clause to have drafted it properly so that it exempts them from the liability arising and if any ambiguity is present, the courts usually interpret it strictly against the party relying on the clause. Exclusion clauses are clauses, usually written down that say that one party to the contract will not be responsible for certain happenings. These clauses can be valid, as long as they have been properly included in the contract and are not contrary to law. To be properly included in the contract, the clause cannot be tacked on after the contract has been made. If there is a signed contract containing the clause, this will usually have the effect of including it. If there is no signed contract, but there are printed documents or signs posted stating the terms, these can be included in the contract if they are brought to your attention before the contract is made. There are some important obligations to a consumer that are placed on a trader and these are implied by statute into consumer
Before any contract is formed there are aspects that must be fulfilled. Firstly there must be an offer, defined in the case of Harvey v Facey [1893] as “a proposition made by one party to the other in terms that are fixed or specific, with the intention that the offeror will be legally bound if
A contract may be unenforceable due to unequal bargaining power . . . if it was denied the opportunity to seek legal advice prior to entering into the agreement; or if the contract is somehow unconscionable.
The seller must keep to the terms and conditions that the parties to the contract have agreed upon,
Example : If the person has purchase the hot water bottle from a shopkeeper. However the bottle breaks when you pour the hot water into it. In this case, the shopkeeper is liable to refund the price of the bottle purchase because the bottle was unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.
In the case of Brian versus Brenda. Brian is the sole proprietor of Brian’s Café. In order to meet his financial targets, he decided to expand his menu for a sophisticated dinner, given the market unreliability for chickens due to bird flu, he concluded the best option would be in rearing Cornish hens. Brenda, an owner of two acres of land, conducted her business as Brenda’s Hatchery. Being the only available hatchery within close proximity, Brian approached Brenda. He offered to purchase one hundred Cornish hens on a monthly basis. Before the contract was concluded, Brenda said in summary, “I must state up front that you take them as they are. Please feel free to have them checked- though being in the business for fifteen years, I can attest that they are in the best health possible.” She further stated purchasing perks. Brian did not rely on Brenda’s opinion but rather, he sought advice from Jimmy, a friend, also a financial advisor who has been in the hatchery business for over ten years to give his opinion. Jimmy established that the hens were in good health and gave Brian the green light to make the purchase. Brian and Brenda signed a contract, which excluded