This question raises the concern of whether the contract concerning Fast Eddie and Laura must be implemented or must either be altered or rendered void since it was unconscionable.
The significant requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC must interpret this contract since it includes the selling of goods as stated by UCC 2-102. Normally, agreements are implemented according to their terms, but courts could decide not to implement contracts, for which they consider to be unconscionable as stated by UCC 2-302. Unconscionable Contracts can be explained as courts that find any contract or clause to be unconscionable at the time it was made. Courts can refuse to enforce the contract or limit the application of an unconscionable clause to avoid an unconscionable result. Unconscionability involves two elements, both of which must be present in order to make a contract invalid. These elements are procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. In concerning element, a sliding scale allows for a greater degree of one factor and a lesser degree of another to result in a finding of unconscionability.
Procedural unconscionability may be shown by either inequality in bargaining power or unfair surprise. Evidence of inequality in bargaining power can be shown in three ways. First, terms unreasonably favorable to other party, second, terms that are hidden in the contract, and third, a plaintiff with a lower education. Evidence of unfair surprise is shown by hidden terms in a verbose document. Substantive unconscionability may be shown by overly harsh allocation of risks or costs not justified by the circumstances.
While procedural unconscionability may exist, this element can be overcome if the complaining party had ...
... middle of paper ...
...he deal.
Laura then can build an improved case by which the default clause, which permitted Fast Eddie to reclaim the vehicle and maintain all payments previously given, is unconscionable. Fast Eddie was entirely attentive of Laura's risky financial standpoint. I believe it is very likely that a court would decide this prearrangement void. Otherwise, it might as permitted under the UCC, alter the agreement so that Laura could be given extra time to make the last two payments and pay added interest at the current rate until she does so.
Laura can show that the default prearrangement of the contract was not only procedurally but also substantively unconscionable. I believe the expense would stand but that the court would do one of two things, permit her added time to make the payment or would have her return the vehicle and collect most of her money back in return.
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
Debbie owed Carlos $50,000 on a contract for the purchase of 200 air conditioners on credit, the terms of payment stating “Payment due 60 days after delivery.” Delivery was made on January 2. On March 10, Debbie met Carlos and told him, “I’m sorry I missed out on paying you what I owe you. Collections have been slow. If you give me until May 1, I’ll pay you what I owe plus interest at 9%.” Carlos said, “O.K. I’ll give you until May 1.” On March 15, Carlos changed his mind and sued Debbie for $50,000. Debbie contends that the debt is not due until May
In August 2008, NFM sent the McCaulleys another invoice of $14,550 and told them that NFM did not have to honor the agreement, because of the pricing error and a provision concerning this error printed in the back of the invoices the McCaulleys received. NFM eventually refunded the deposit to the McCaulleys’ credit card without informing them. On September 26th 2008, the McCaulleys filed a complained to seek declaratory relief and damages on the basis that NFM breached the sales contract. On October 24th 2008, NFM answered that the pricing error clause on the invoices invalidated the complaint and the fact that Richard and Michelle took no action to retender the deposit led to the rescission of the contract. In April 27th 2012, the district court ruled in favor of NFM. The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract.
They want him to pay interest fees amounting to $2,134.54 “owing through March 2, 2016, plus interest at the contract orlegalrateof6.000percent from that date forward through the date of judgment, continuing at accur at the rate of 10.0 percent per annum from the date of Judgment until paid.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a two-fold definition for the word “contract”. A contract is “a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties, especially one legally enforceable” (Merriam-Webster). It is also a business agreement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price” (Merriam-Webster). John Rawls argues that “an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. To be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality. It is unfair if one of the contracting parties is able to take advantage of the other party because they are stronger, richer, better informed, or simply more powerful” (Sandel 30). The purpose of this essay is to affirm Rawls’ argument because I do agree that entrance into a contract does not mean that the contract is just, especially if one party is perceived to have an advantage over the terms of the contract. To do so, I will use a scenario to prove that if an agreement was made voluntarily, this is not enough to ensure that the terms agreed to are fair. I will also provide possible counterarguments for oppositions that provide criticism on Rawls’ grounds.
) A mechanics lien are commonly used by subcontractors and suppliers, in this case Rupert would be the subcontractor for Clyde. Clyde could be force to sell his home to pay for the mechanics lien, or pay twice as much than he was originally obligated to pay because of legal fees accrued. Rupert cannot enforce the $200 tune up through a mechanic’s lien, but he can place a lien on Clyde’s property for the $20,000 promised to build the detached garage. This lien places a legal claim against the property that has been built, improved or remodeled. In order to collect the $200 promised for the tune up on Clyde’s car, Rupert will have to file a separate case through small claims court to try and recover the $200. The fees to file this case could
... 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.
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.”
The primary purpose of the “Statute of Frauds” (SOF) is to protect the interests of parties once they are involved in litigating a contract dispute (Spagnola, 2008). The relevant statutes are reliant upon state jurisdictions to determine whether the contract falls under the SOF, and whether the writing of the contract satisfies the requirements of the statute of frauds (Spagnola, 2008). However, all contracts are not covered under the SOF. In essence, for a contract to be deemed as legal by definition of the SOF, there must be verification of the following requirements for formation of the contract, which are as follows: (1) There must be least two parties to the contract, (2) There must be a mutual agreement and acceptance on the price to pay for goods and services offered, (3) The subject matter or reason for entering the contract, must be clearly understood by all parties to the contract, (4) and there must be a stipulated time for performance of duties under the contractual obligations (Spagnola, 2008). Lastly, there are five categories of contracts that are covered under the SOF, which are as follows: (1) The transfer of real property interests, (2) Contracts that are not performable within one year, (3) Contracts in consideration of marriage, (4) Surtees and guarantees (answering to the debt of another), and (5) Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) provisions regarding the sale of goods or services, legally valued over five hundred dollars ($500.00) (Spagnola, 2008).
The case presented is that of Sam Stevens who resides in an apartment. He has been working on an alarm system that makes barking sounds to scare off intruders, and has made a verbal agreement with a chain store to ship them 1,000 units. He had verbally told his landlord, Quinn, about his new invention and Quinn wished him luck. However, he recently received an eviction notice for the violation of his lease due to the fact that his new invention was too loud and interrupting the covenant of quiet of enjoyment of the neighbors and for conducting business from his apartment unit.
In order to answer the issue which is stated above, it is pertinent to discuss the elements of the two doctrines. First we need to discuss the elements of unconscionability. In the case of Fry v Lane , the court suggested that there are three elements to establish unconscionability. First, one party must be at a special disadvantage to the other, for instance, poverty, ignorance or lack of advice. Secondly, this weakness must be exploited by the other party in some morally culpable manner. Thirdly, the resulting transaction must not be merely harsh or improvident, but overreaching and oppressive. When the terms of the contract are so oppressive and outrageous that it...
The basic purpose of UCTA 1977 is to restrict the extent to which liability in a contract can be excluded for breach of contract and negligence, largely by reference to a reasonableness requirement, but in some cases by a specific prohibition.
Both the common law and the statutory law have recognized the weaker position of consumers. It is well established an exclusion clause will be valid and enforceable only if it is incorporated in the contract, use clear wordings and does not contravene statutory limits. In order to limit the unfairness resulting from exclusion clauses, the courts have developed certain principles such as the doctrine of non est factum in signature cases, ‘red ink-red hand’ principle in relation to ‘onerous or unusual’ terms, contra proferentem rule when interpreting ambiguous exclusion clauses and ‘fundamental breach’ principle.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
This offer is opened for a week only and it is closed after a week which is on 8 of January. But on January 2nd, Tina sent a letter saying that RM60, 000 is too much for her and she offer RM50, 000 to David. After Tine had made her consideration, she sent her second letter to David saying that RM60, 000 is reasonable and she accept the offer. In the same time, David had sold the car to 3rd party which is Ling Ling. If Tina no makes counter-offer to David, the acceptance is still valid. Therefore, Tina has failed to accept the offer in the first time and she made a counter-offer to David. When the time that Tina made the counter offer which means she had destroyed the original offer and the first offer is no longer to be accepted. Lastly, David has his own right to sell the car to other parties after Tina had made the counter-offer. So in this case, David is allowed for not sell the car to