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
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.