Cases Analysis Part 3 - Coursework Example

In this specific case, stating that if Williams ever missed a payment, the store could repossess all the items that Williams had ever bought from Walker, regardless of how long ago they were purchased is a strong example of unconscionable clause. If the clause referred only to that one purchase to which the missed payment referred, it would not be considered unreasonable and unfair. I believe that in this case, the bargaining power of the parties was definitely unequal, placing the consumer in a disadvantaged position.

Therefore, Williams should ask the Court not to enforce this specific clause, based on its unconscionability and unfairness. Moreover, in multiple previous cases, it was held that a court can refuse to enforce a clause, if it considers it unconscionable. For example, a leading case in this is Scott v. United States2, where it was held by the Supreme Court that: “If a contract be unreasonable and unconscionable, but not void for fraud, a court of law will give to the party who sues for its breach damages, not according to its letter, but only such as he is equitably entitled to.

” Also, the Uniform Commercial Code provides exact stipulations on this matter in paragraph 2-302, where it stipulates that: “(1) 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. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

“3 This means that by law, Courts are entitled to refuse to enforce a contract or a clause, if it finds it unconscionable, which is the case of Williams. CHAPTER 12 CASE 3 There are several issues that Horizon House Microwave Inc. can use in its favor. First of all, it refers to Hall’s reasons to getting a job for HHM. If Hall decided to become an employee at HHM only because of the promise he was made by Bazzy, it is one thing. BUT, if Hall had been working for HHM for a period prior to the promise, the situation changes.

This means that while being employed at HHM, Hall received a full salary package and he was actually fairly remunerated for his work and he suffered no material loss for not purchasing company stocks. Therefore, no material damages can be claimed by Hall from HHM. Another important issue that could be used by Bazzy to refuse to sell stock to Hall as agreed may be the lack of a written agreement on this, that would confirm Bazzy’s intention to be bound to the verbal promise he has made. I would advise Bazzy to refer to the General Statutes, specifically § 42a-8-319 where it is expressly stipulated that "A contract for the sale of securities is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless (a) there is some writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made for sale of a stated quantity of described securities at a defined or stated price; or (b) delivery of the security has been accepted or payment has been made but the contract is