Chat with AI
Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of Business Law 5th Edition by Jeffrey Beatty,Susan Samuelson
Edition 5ISBN: 978-1285427003Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of Business Law 5th Edition by Jeffrey Beatty,Susan Samuelson
Edition 5ISBN: 978-1285427003 Exercise 6
Apply the following facts to the next two questions.
The publication of the original UCC in 1952 sparked an expansion of the statute of frauds in the United States to cover sales of goods of $500 or more. At about the same time (in 1954), the British Parliament repealed its longstanding statute of frauds as applied to sales of goods. Some have argued that we should scrap UCC §2-201 on the grounds that it encourages misdealing as much as it prevents fraud. Consider the following two hypotheticals:
(In the United States) Johnny is looking at a used Chevy Tahoe. He knows that the $7,000 price is a good one, but he wants to go online and see if he can find an even better deal. In the 20 minutes he has been with the car's current owner, the owner has received three phone calls about the car. Johnny wants to make sure that no one else buys the car while he is thinking the deal over, so he makes a verbal agreement to buy the car and shakes the seller's hand. He knows that because of the statute of frauds and the fact that nothing is in writing, he does not yet have any enforceable obligation to buy the car.
(In the United Kingdom) Nigel sells used Peugeots in Liverpool. When he senses interest from customers, he aggressively badgers them until they verbally commit to buy. If the customers later get cold feet and try to back out of the deal, he holds them to the verbal contracts. Because there is no longer a UCC-style statute of frauds in Britain, the buyers are stuck.
This chapter revisits the idea of unconscionability. Courts will sometimes refuse to enforce deals that are, as UCC §2-302 states it, "shocking and fundamentally unfair". Consider the following two cases. In each, an electronics store sells an HDTV with a fair market value of $600 for $1500. (a) Sale #1 is made to Ann. She has a terrible credit score, and is willing to pay $1500 because the store offers to finance the TV, and she has no other available credit. (b) Sale #2 is made to Franklin J. Moneypenny, a very wealthy investment banker, on Christmas Eve. He knows the price is much too high, but he is in a big hurry to finish his last minute shopping. In both cases, the consumers paid 2.5 times the fair value of the TV. In your opinion, is either transaction unconscionable If so, why If not, why not
The publication of the original UCC in 1952 sparked an expansion of the statute of frauds in the United States to cover sales of goods of $500 or more. At about the same time (in 1954), the British Parliament repealed its longstanding statute of frauds as applied to sales of goods. Some have argued that we should scrap UCC §2-201 on the grounds that it encourages misdealing as much as it prevents fraud. Consider the following two hypotheticals:
(In the United States) Johnny is looking at a used Chevy Tahoe. He knows that the $7,000 price is a good one, but he wants to go online and see if he can find an even better deal. In the 20 minutes he has been with the car's current owner, the owner has received three phone calls about the car. Johnny wants to make sure that no one else buys the car while he is thinking the deal over, so he makes a verbal agreement to buy the car and shakes the seller's hand. He knows that because of the statute of frauds and the fact that nothing is in writing, he does not yet have any enforceable obligation to buy the car.
(In the United Kingdom) Nigel sells used Peugeots in Liverpool. When he senses interest from customers, he aggressively badgers them until they verbally commit to buy. If the customers later get cold feet and try to back out of the deal, he holds them to the verbal contracts. Because there is no longer a UCC-style statute of frauds in Britain, the buyers are stuck.
This chapter revisits the idea of unconscionability. Courts will sometimes refuse to enforce deals that are, as UCC §2-302 states it, "shocking and fundamentally unfair". Consider the following two cases. In each, an electronics store sells an HDTV with a fair market value of $600 for $1500. (a) Sale #1 is made to Ann. She has a terrible credit score, and is willing to pay $1500 because the store offers to finance the TV, and she has no other available credit. (b) Sale #2 is made to Franklin J. Moneypenny, a very wealthy investment banker, on Christmas Eve. He knows the price is much too high, but he is in a big hurry to finish his last minute shopping. In both cases, the consumers paid 2.5 times the fair value of the TV. In your opinion, is either transaction unconscionable If so, why If not, why not
Explanation
Verified
Verified
As per common law the agreement is enfor...
Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of Business Law 5th Edition by Jeffrey Beatty,Susan Samuelson
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
