Plaw 210 Memorandum of Law
To: Professor Susan Patrick
From: Virginia M Garman
Date: March 4, 2013
Re: Memorandum of Law; Rough Draft
QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked me to answer the question, “Are the Virginia courts likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine as set out and applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp.", based on the opinion and rulings of previous similar cases.
SHORT ANSWER
The Virginia courts are highly likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine that has been set out and applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp. The Jones purchased a freezer unit from Star Credit Corp for $900, three times the retail value of the unit. In this case, the court held that the contract between parties was unconscionable because it violated [HN2] U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964), which is set in place to prevent the oppression and unfair surprise of the consumer. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969)
The U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964) enacted the moral sense of the community into the law of commercial transactions. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) There was no fraud involved in this case. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) [HN6] U.C.C. § 2-302 explains that the meaningfulness of choice essentials to the making of a contract can be negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Since the salesman was aware of the plaintiff’s limited financial funds, and coerced them into signing the agreement, then that agreement is deemed unconscionable under this law. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969)
ANALYSIS
1. Jones v. Star Credit Corp. Standard of Unconscionability
Plaintiffs Clifton Jones and his wife, both welfare recipients, purchased a $900.00 home freezer unit, with a maximum retail value of $300.00, for a total of $1,234.80. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Their income is grossly unequal to the salesman. Jones v. Star Credit
From: Virginia M Garman
Date: March 4, 2013
Re: Memorandum of Law; Rough Draft
QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked me to answer the question, “Are the Virginia courts likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine as set out and applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp.", based on the opinion and rulings of previous similar cases.
SHORT ANSWER
The Virginia courts are highly likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine that has been set out and applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp. The Jones purchased a freezer unit from Star Credit Corp for $900, three times the retail value of the unit. In this case, the court held that the contract between parties was unconscionable because it violated [HN2] U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964), which is set in place to prevent the oppression and unfair surprise of the consumer. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969)
The U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964) enacted the moral sense of the community into the law of commercial transactions. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) There was no fraud involved in this case. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) [HN6] U.C.C. § 2-302 explains that the meaningfulness of choice essentials to the making of a contract can be negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Since the salesman was aware of the plaintiff’s limited financial funds, and coerced them into signing the agreement, then that agreement is deemed unconscionable under this law. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969)
ANALYSIS
1. Jones v. Star Credit Corp. Standard of Unconscionability
Plaintiffs Clifton Jones and his wife, both welfare recipients, purchased a $900.00 home freezer unit, with a maximum retail value of $300.00, for a total of $1,234.80. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Their income is grossly unequal to the salesman. Jones v. Star Credit