Voidable Agreements and Unconscionable Contracts - Assignment Example

Case Summary on Voidable Agreements and Unconscionable Contracts Introduction A voidable contract involves an agreement between two parties considered unenforceable by a court of law under certain circumstances. Those circumstances that render a contract unenforceable include non-disclosure of material facts, misrepresentation, provision of misleading information, fraud, lack of genuine good will by one party, coercion and those agreements involving minors. On the other hand, unconscionable contracts put one party at a disadvantaged position because the other party fails to disclose all material facts during an agreement (Ewan 21).

In proceedings of any case revolving around voidable or unconscionable contracts, a court of law has to check for all the necessary terms that render an agreement voidable prior to making any ruling. Case Summary The following summary of a case in a court of law shows a voidable agreement containing an unconscionable contract. The case in subject involves a minor who purchased a used car from an adult at one hundred and forty dollars. He, the buyer, attempted to return the car after noticing that the main bearing system had malfunctions.

As a result, the buyer informed the seller on the issue, and asserted that repairing the entire bearing system would cost approximately half the purchasing price. Therefore, the minor left the car with the seller and mailed a written notification expressing his dissatisfaction; hence terminating their contract. As a counter action, the adult seller sued the minor buyer for breaching their agreement. After appraising all essential components of the case, the court passed a ruling in favor of the seller on the basis that the contract was not voidable.

The premise provided was that the buyer’s aunt and grandmother not only gave him the money for purchase of the car, but also accompanied him to the venue of transaction. In this first ruling, the seller benefited as a result of misinterpretation of the law on voidable contract. Appellate Ruling The buyer appealed after losing in the first trial. The court of appeal analyzed the provided evidence and determined the case as a voidable contract. The appellate chamber maintained that the transaction surrounding the contract was between a minor and an adult.

This premise holds regardless of whether the minor’s relatives were present during the agreement. Therefore, the court held that participation of both the aunt and the grandmother did not change the law concerning contracts entered between a minor and an adult, especially those agreements involving personal property (Ewan 45). Still on the appellate ruling, the court’s judge also established the underlying contract as unconscionable. This is based on the fact that the seller withheld relevant information from the minor regarding the automobile’s faulty bearing system.

In this context, failure to disclose relevant information about the actual state of a tangible property amounts to unconscionable circumstances in any subsequent agreement. Therefore, the minor signed the contract without prior knowledge of the car’s faulty system. The court maintained its ruling on grounds of unconscionable contract law because the seller had all the bargaining power, thus making the agreement for his own advantage. With respect to evidence, the appeal court substantiated that the transaction was between the minor and the adult seller, and not between the seller and the buyer’s relatives.

In this case, the seller was consciously and fully aware of the minor’s age when the negotiation took place. Therefore, the minor had every right to terminate the contract and transaction upon realizing a disadvantage resulting from the agreement. However, the agreement could still be valid if the seller had agreed to take the burden of paying for repairs on the car’s bearing system. Based on evidence and laws surrounding the case, the court of appeal made a ruling in favor of the minor; hence terming the contract as voidable.

Consequently, the court of appeal reversed the verdict made in the lower court. Conclusion The brief case above shows that many individuals have limited information on the circumstances that makes to be either voidable or unconscionable. Conventionally, the ruling jury has to establish all facts surrounding a contract, and objectively analyze any evidence presented in order to arrive at an informed decision (Ewan 39). In most cases, court rulings that are based on limited evidence and misinformed interpretation of underlying laws subject innocent parties to suffering and loss.

Work Cited Ewan, McKendrick. Contract Law: Text, cases and materials. London: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.