Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: contracts question  (Read 1028 times)

verbal

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1974
    • AOL Instant Messenger - verbaltrinity
    • View Profile
contracts question
« on: December 07, 2006, 12:31:02 AM »
a man with a high school drop out education goes to buy a coffee pot that can be set to automatically add in the perfect amount of cream and sugar every day. He goes to a department store and talks to a saleswomen who shows him the perfect machine. it cost 320 dollars. the man tells the women he cant afford it right now so she tells him about their credit plan. she says if u pay 30 dollars a month for a year u can take the coffee pot home right now. She shows him the contract and he asks her if he has to read it. she says no. the man buys the coffee pot. A few months later the man takes in a tenant to live with him. She asks about the coffee pot and he shows her the contract. She says do u know that u r paying 40 dollars to much for that coffee pot. the man says no i didnt understand the contract.

What makes this contract unconscionable?

1. the fact that the women told him he didnt need to read the contract
2. the fact that it was an adhesion contract
3. the fact that he couldnt afford it as proved by the fact he had to take on a tenant
4. it wasnt unconscionable
Attending: OU

verbal

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1974
    • AOL Instant Messenger - verbaltrinity
    • View Profile
Re: contracts question
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2006, 08:47:40 AM »
does anyone have a guess
Attending: OU

drbuff123

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: contracts question
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2006, 09:08:57 AM »
I'm going with 4, but I breezed through the fact pattern

tenth8sphere

  • Guest
Re: contracts question
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2006, 09:56:21 AM »
a man with a high school drop out education goes to buy a coffee pot that can be set to automatically add in the
What makes this contract unconscionable?

1. the fact that the women told him he didnt need to read the contract
2. the fact that it was an adhesion contract
3. the fact that he couldnt afford it as proved by the fact he had to take on a tenant
4. it wasnt unconscionable

My take:

Uncon can be either procedural or substantive.

1. Even a form contract is valid if signed, even if not read, UNLESS the other party has reason to believe the person would not have signed it had they been aware of a term within it. In this case, it's not clear whether the man is being charged more than the price he agreed to (this would be UNCON) or whether he simply overpaid in the first place for the pot (this would not be UNCON).

2. Adhesion contracts are not, in and of themselves, UNCON. It might be so if the man had no bargaining power and had no room to negotiation. In this case, the man could have walked away and not bough it (not a necessity) or could have chosen to shop around at other stores.

3. This might be UNCON if the saleswoman had reason to believe he couldn't keep up with the monthly payments and continued to pressure him regardless. However, the facts say he said he couldn't pay the full price, but he made no such indications about the monthly payment plan. Many people in the real world need to make payments on things they couldn't afford outright, such as cars, furniture, etc. Nothing in the facts suggest UNCON to me here.

4. Barring the above notations, the contract probably isn't unconscionable. One should always bear in mind the disposition of a court hearing the case, however.

bella112

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: contracts question
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2006, 12:49:34 PM »
I would also add that its not the court's place to protect people from their own ignorance, he could have read the contract or gotten someone else's advice, this wasn't a high pressure situation. Also, there is a adequate (i.e. not disproportionate) consideration in that he pays more to get to take home the coffee pot that day, and the store gets more money because it is willing to wait for the full price to be paid. There's nothing shocking to this contract.

upNdown

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • My favorite bike - cheap, ugly, heavy, and fun.
    • View Profile
Re: contracts question
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2006, 03:56:31 PM »
That contract isn't substantively unconscionable.  Procedurally, I don't see it either.  I say it isn't unconscionable. 
GPA - 2.095 (It was a long time ago and I wasn't trying.)
LSAT - 161

In - Suffolk, New England School of Law
Out - BC, Northeastern
Pending - Nothing pending . . . now what?

verbal

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1974
    • AOL Instant Messenger - verbaltrinity
    • View Profile
Re: contracts question
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2006, 11:29:52 PM »
i put unconscionalbe n my test. thanks for your opinions everyone. ill let u know how it turned out.
Attending: OU

beegees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: contracts question
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2006, 01:51:37 AM »
if it is unconscionable, it would have to be choice 1. but i think it is not unconscionable so choice 4.

verbal, what school do you attend?

verbal

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1974
    • AOL Instant Messenger - verbaltrinity
    • View Profile
Re: contracts question
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2006, 09:51:57 AM »
U of oklahoma
Attending: OU

tenth8sphere

  • Guest
Re: contracts question
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2006, 11:06:02 AM »
i put unconscionalbe n my test. thanks for your opinions everyone. ill let u know how it turned out.

Was it solely multiple choice, or did it have an essay component in discussing the options? If it's got an essay component, then your analysis will be the most important thing your prof looks at.