Unconscionable As A Matter Of Law

a."If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result" (What Is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? n.a).

The Virginia courts are highly likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine that has been set out and applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp. The Jones purchased a freezer unit from Star Credit Corp for $900, three times the retail value of the unit. In this case, the court held that the contract between parties was unconscionable because it violated [HN2] U.C.C. § 2-302

A contract is an enforceable promise between parties. The parties to any contract must perform according to the relevant and required standards. This includes substantial performance of the services promised, complete or strict performance and personal satisfaction. Failure to perform as required is a breach, which is a compensable injury. Several defenses exist as a result of contract breach. This may include, statute of limitation, statute of frauds requirement for writing, fraud, mistake done during contract performance, lack of good capacity and unconscious ability.

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

2. Decide who might be harmed and how, this will involve consideration of everyone in the workplace such as

Determine the elements of a valid contract, and discuss how consumers and banks each have a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the banking relationship.

Within a contract consideration must be made to the creation of the contract. The terms of the contract define the obligations of the parties. It is by analysing the terms that you can find out what has to be done to discharge those obligations. For example in Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1976] QB 44; [1975] 3 All ER 739, the buyer Cehave did not want to accept the delivered goods because they were not in ‘good condition’ although they were in satisfactory condition to perform their purpose which was to be used as animal feed.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

List the specific ethical principles from the NASW Code of Ethics and identify those legal duties that you believe apply to the case.

Describing and analyzing torts, crimes, and contract law will be very beneficial to any person involved in law. Providing a real-life or hypothetical examples of five kinds of intentional torts will be explained. Knowing the difference between a tort and crime is important and whether its possible for a violation to be both a crime and a tort. The conclusion will consist of the concept of “voluntary consent” as it relates to contract law and what impact does mistakes have on contract enforcement.

Contract law has set out to provide a healthy trade environment. Contracts are promises enforced by the law, with the support of something of value that has a legal purpose. It is an agreement between parties, formed by the elements: offer and acceptance, with all parties having the capacity to perform obligations enforceable by law. There are instances where the enforcement of a contract would bring about gains or losses to society and commerce.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer has accepted the goods, they may subsequently revoke acceptance if goods are nonconforming and nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Hartz had the right to reject the soybeans due to nonconforming goods, and to notify Coleman of their intentions, which they did. The lower court found Coleman liable under the contract ?against the clear preponderance of the evidence,? and therefore, Hartz is entitled to the pursued

Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). Business Law (8th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.

3. From the learning material, identify ways that we can ensure client rights are upheld.

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.