– Jones (Plaintiff) agreed to buy a freezer for $900, and paid a total of $619 towards it, when he defaulted, but Star (Defendant) claims that he still owed $819….when purchased, the freezer had a max value of $300…
– Court trying to protect un-educated people/consumers?
- Taking advantage of the poor and illiterate.
- Realizes the importance of a free enterprise but will try and provide legal armor to protect and safeguard the prospective victim.
Should a contract that involves the dispute of a price be held unconscionable within the meaning of 2-302?
A sale of unit that is so grossly overpriced item is unconscionable as a matter of law.
– Pretty much making decision on public policy (prevention of oppression, 2-302 note 1).
– Term’s regarding price within a contract.
– A very limited financial resource of the purchaser be-known to the sellers at the time of the sale is entitled to weight in the decision.
– Gross inequality of bargaining power.
– There are obvious advantages for a poor person to have an installment plan because he/she could never purchase the item without such an option…but…
- ***Selling merchant is expected to establish a pricing factor that will afford a degree of protection commensurate with the risk of selling to those who might be default prone***
– Having paid more than 600 the D has already been amply compensated…