2 DISCUSSIONS

Under UCC 2-302, who has the best chance of getting out of the contract due to unconscionability?

Under the UCC 302 rule of a contract states that if a court finds that a contract or any part of a contract was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court can either refuse to enforce the contract, can enforce the contract without the unconscionable clause (Goldman, & Sigismond, 2006). According to the UCC 302 rule, Breanna has the best chance of getting out of the contract due to unconscionability. When she signed to contract to buy the AC unit, the situation was urgent and gave her a little chance of bargaining power and there was no choice but to agree to the terms of this contract. Breanna had poor credit, the addition of $500 in interest and financing fees that were added made the contract overcharged (Rogers, 2012). 

The symbol for justice features a woman wearing a blindfold illustrating that the law should be applied the same way regardless of who the parties are. Does the UCC rule seem to contradict this? Which approach do you think is more ethical?

UCC does not contradict what the symbol for justice stands for. In addition, I think that the UCC has a more ethical approach to the sale of goods and handling of contracts. UCC has a better representation of treating people fairly (Rogers, 2012). In the Ace Heating and Cooling case scenario, contracts were difficult to get out of. Both contracts were standards for services and goods when they were entered into by Glamour Café’ and Shady Rest Nursing Home. Moreover, UCC protected people like Breanna from being stuck in a contract. Despite Breanna having unfortunate financial circumstances, she was not supposed to be overcharged more than was agreed on, unlike other consumers.

Note that both Glamour and Shady Rest are businesses, and courts rarely find that contracts between two businesses are unconscionable. The rationale is that a business is a sophisticated entity, familiar with transactions, and able to protect itself. Do you think Glamour and Shady Rest are in a comparable position in regard to this contract? Why or why not?

I feel that the court should have reviewed the contracts of both businesses to determine unconscionability. As represented by the symbol for justice the law should be fair to everybody. In both cases, individuals were faced with price gouging by Ace Heating and cooling due to excessive heatwave that was occurring. Out of the two examples, I feel that Shady Rest has the better chance of getting out of the contract due to the fact that lack of air conditioning could be seen as a safety hazard towards the elderly residents. 

References

Goldman, A. J., & Sigismond, W. D. (2006). Business law: Principles and practices. Houghton

Mifflin College Division.

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law [Electronic version]. Retrieved

from https://content.ashford.edu/