Swot Analysis Of Takem 's Appliances And Electronics
1094 Words5 Pages
Takem’s Appliances and Electronics Sally Walker, a resident of Virginia, fell behind on her payment of computer purchased and financed through Takem’s Appliances and Electronics, LLC. After the initiation of the collection process, Sally responded with a letter stating the contract is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, that she “paid enough” and would not make any further payments, and she will sue for punitive damages and share her story with the local media. Tommy Takem, the owner and operator of Takem’s Appliances and Electronics, LLC, is seeking advice on four questions. Does the letter have any merit or should he proceed with collections? What can he do to protect himself from future litigation and public pressure?…show more content… Takem’s office staff file all financing paperwork with the appropriate state office. Despite a high rate of default, Takem’s business maintains its profitability through a combination of collections, repossessions, fees and charges, higher prices, and markups. Because of the nature of door-to-door sales, this paper will assume that Takem’s sales team caries small appliances on hand and larger appliance require a second delivery date. The assignment states “Tommy tends to charge about 10-20 % more than most other retail outlets.” It must be assumed that this compares with business in similar geographical settings, that all other costs, such as wages and rent, are comparable, and the 10-20% applies to all services not expressly stated, such as delivery charges. Furthermore, although aggressive in their sales technique, nothing refutes the idea that the contracts are understandable to the layperson. Sally’s statement that “she paid enough” for the computer implies she made at least half of the payment prior to defaulting.
Existing Case Law Common law, or judgemade law or case law, is “law made and applied by judges as they decide cases not governed by statutes or other types of law (Christman, 1999).” Two cases have direct relationship with Tommy’s questions. The first case, Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc (1960), the Henningsen suffered personal injures by a defect in the steering mechanism. They sued when the