Plaw 210 Memorandum of Law Essay

You asked me to answer the question, are the Virginia motor inns probable to follow the unconscionability doctrine as beat appear and applied in Jones v. head t severallyer honorable mention Corp., establish on the opinion and thoughts of previous similar fibers. presently ANSWERThe Virginia appeals are exceedingly likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine that has been set out and applied in Jones v. aesthesis character reference Corp. The Jones purchased a deep freezer unit from maven ascribe Corp for $900, three multiplication the sell mensurate of the unit. In this case, the mash of law held that the squelch amidst parties was exorbitant because it violate HN2 U.C.C. 2-302 (1964), which is set in place to keep back the oppression and unfair surprise of the consumer. Jones v. sentience reliance Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) The U.C.C. 2-302 (1964) enacted the m ad-lib sensory faculty of the community into the law of commercial-grade tra nsactions. Jones v. confidential information commendation Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) There was no fraud involved in this case. Jones v. head Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) HN6 U.C.C. 2-302 apologizes that the meaningfulness of choice essentials to the devising of a contract can be negated by a gross variation of bargaining power. Jones v. one Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Since the gross revenueman was sure of the plaintiffs bound financial funds, and coerced them into signing the engagement, then that proportiona xess is deemed horrid to a lower place this law. Jones v. brilliance Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) ANALYSIS1. Jones v. one Credit Corp. Standard of Unconscionability complainants Clifton Jones and his married woman, both eudaimonia recipients, purchased a $900.00 root freezer unit, with a upper limit retail value of $300.00, for a integral of $1,234.80. Jones v. sentiency Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Their income is grossly unequal to the bargainsman. Jones v. track Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) The total damage of the home freezer unit included the recognise charges, commendation life insurance, credit blank space insurance, and sales value. Id. Their first remuneratement towards this unit was $619.88. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Star Credit Corp, the Defendant, claims that with the various added credit charges paid for an backstage of time the Jones still owes a isotropy of $819.81 Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) The credit charges alone exceed more than $100.00 the retail value of the unit. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Plaintiff argues that the sales understanding was unconscientious according to the Uniform Commercial Code, U.C.C. 2-302 (1964), which is intend to encompass the footing landmark of an agreement. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) As welfare recipients, the Plaintiff(s) has/have bound finances therefore the Defendant was able to take receipts of them. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969).This was interpreted into consideration, also whether or non an consumptive and c all toldous act had interpreted place. Id. The precise limited financial resources of the purchaser, cognise to the sellers at the time of the sale, is entitled to weight in the balance. In claim, the value disagreement itself leads inevitably to the entangle conclusion that knowing emolument was taken of the plaintiffs. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969). The address ruled in the Plaintiffs kick upstairs, declaring that the defendant has been extravagantly compensated by the $600.00+ al conducty paid. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) The salute believes that the sale of a freezer unit having a retail value of $300.00 being inte rchange for $900.00, not including credit charges and $18.00 sales tax is horrid as a guinea pig of law. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) a. bowler hat v. bowler hat, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989)Sandra A bowler was desire a divide from her keep up, George E. bowler, of 22 years. bowler v. derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) economise filed a cross- short letter on claims of his wifes adultery, and persuasion to sign a property block agreement without consultation with counsel. bowler hat v. bowler, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The married man claimed he was coerced into signing the stems with a wild pretense of his wifes ultimate return to the family home. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) In this case, Sandra A. Derby had been married to George E. Derby, jr. for 22 years before seeking a split alleging cruelty. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The wife managed to persuade her h usband to amend their property settlement agreement, allowing her to baffle the entire value of essentially all of the valuable real estate that they owned. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) This took place in a parking lot with no consultation or counselor present. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The husband explained that he sign(a) the agreement because he scene if he did, his wife would return to the home.Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) Evidence of his wifes adultery was presented at rivulet and the husband was give a divorce on that ground by the discharge court. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The essay court also held that the insulation agreement was shut-in due to footing of unconscionability and constructive fraud or duress. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The courts applied this rule because a contract can be deemed unconscionable if oppressive influences affected the ag reement to the achievement that the process was unfair and the terms of the answer agreement unconscionable. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) Also, the dissolution agreement can be held as invalid because marriage and divorce create a relationship which is in particular susceptible to overreach and oppression. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) This case applied to Jones v. Star Credit Corp. because the plaintiff was taken advantage of by the defendant. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The wife had knowledge of inflicted emotional put out on her husband when she coerced him to sign the agreement.Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The rivulet come close held, and the consequence supports that finding, that Mrs. Derby, played upon the weakness of her husband and his desire to reconcile to conduct Mr. Derby. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The Virginia court affirm the order granting the divorce and invalidating the insularity agreement. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989)The court affirmed the order for divorce on grounds of adultery, also holding that the separation agreement was unconscionable due to probable evidence. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) b. couthie scrap option Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) In this case, Beckner and her husband entered into a commercial lease with favourable spyglass ointment Incorporation commencing in 1976 with an original term limit of 15 years. prosperous starter balm Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) study required annual payment of 2% of the submits gross loot above $275,000. Friendly grump Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) In 2002, Mrs. Beckner write agreement to redevelop the property. Friendly grouch Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) dead after, Beckners son indicated concern for his amazes actions, thus requesting the documents be considered invalid and withdrawn for further consideration. Friendly crosspatch Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) This is considered establishing a prima facie case of undue influence.Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) If the party seeking rescission of the deed or contract produces clear and persuade evidence of great weakness of reason and grossly short(p) consideration or suspicious circumstances, and absent sufficient refuter evidence, is entitled to rescission of the document. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) The streamlet court establish that Beckner suffered from great weakness of mind and the consideration was grossly inadequate and the transaction had taken place under suspicious circumstances however court found no support of a grossly inadequate compensation. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) The Virginia court found, on the reversion, that the lesser, Beckner, was a business woman. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) On March 22, 2002, Ms. Beckner filed a burden of complaint against Friendly and FriendCo. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) The prime minister entered into judgment, legal opinion in Ms. Beckners favor on Count II of her flower of Complaint-grossly inadequate consideration. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) The court converse the trial courts ordinance rescinding the amendment to the lease and requiring repayment of funds by Mrs. Beckner. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 597 S.E. 2d 34 (Va. 2004) Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005)Diana Ruth Galloway, fountain spouse, appeared before the court seeking limited review of the Mathews County travel Courts ruling reversing the trial courts ruling that the property settlement agreement between wife and former husband was unconscionable under Va. Co de Ann. 20-151. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) wife failed to prove any overreaching by the husband, even if she had been able to prove a gross disparity in the parting of assets. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) Also there was no clear and convincing evidence of overreaching or oppressive behavior by the husband. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) The parties were married on June 1, 1984, and marooned on October 1, 2001. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) They had neither born(p) nor adopted children into this marriage.Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) After their separation in 2001, husband brought the property settlement agreement to wifes flat where the wife read it and proposed no changes. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) The agreement was executed on folk 29, 2001. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) T he commissioner found the agreement to be unconscionable, because there was a gross disparity that existed between the value of the property each party would receive. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) The trial court sustained husbands remonstration to the commissioners finding of unconscionability. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E. 2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) This case relates to Jones v. Star Credit Corp in the similarity of financial value. The freezer was charge a lot less than was priced the Jones were unconscious(predicate) of the actual value of the unit. Similarly, in this case, the value of the property was not do known to the wife. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009)Appellant wife, Rabha Chaplain, challenged the order of the Circuit Court of the city of Virginia Beach (Virginia), which granted appellee husbands motion to sorb the wifes evidence and found that the parties premarital agreement was not unconscionable on its face an d was enforceable. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) The wife had no source of income and was also foreign, having limited knowledge of side of meat, therefore not allowing her to read or understand the agreement. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) She claimed that her husband had also failed to sit cut out and explain the terms of the agreement to her before it was executed. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) The wifes native lyric was Arabic, having lived in Morocco until the summer of 1996. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) six-spot months after coming to the United States to squall her br opposite, she met her husband. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) They were married on family 4, 1997. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) She spoke limited English and relied on a translator. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) maintain testified that s he could read the English menu in a Chinese restaurant.Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) in spite of appearance two months of meeting, parties became engaged. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) The wife signed a premarital agreement because she swear her husband. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) She had no knowledge of what the agreement held, or that it was a premarital agreement. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) She thought it was just a paper for marriagelike a license or something. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) This case also relates to Jones v. Star Credit Corp because the husband failed to violate a his net worth to his wife prior to the execution of the agreement. He declared to his wife that he was a worthless man and didnt have the currency much. Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. App. 2009) Jessee v. smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981)Jessee, Plaintiff, sued tameshop owner, smith, seeking $2673.26 for poke pursuant to an oral exam contract for interior finishing work. Jessee v. smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The parties are disputing the method of ascertain the labor charge, there being evidence that the plaintiffs oral contract aligned with the trade custom. Jessee v. metalworker 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The trial court held that there had been no meeting of the minds concerning the labor price and the price demanded by plaintiff was exorbitant and contrary to public policy. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The Defendant, Jesse, a carpenter, testified that he was asked by Smith and by Brenda Garrett, manager of Smiths entrepot in Norton, if he would finish the work on the interior of the store for a price of cost plus ten pct. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) He declined and presented a cost plus twenty-five percent, explaining he would have to pay for the materials. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) Garrett called Smith at home and told him to go ahead and start on Monday. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) Smith refused to pay when Jessee presented Smith with a labor bill of $2,673.26, representing 125% of the cost of the materials. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) Smith contended there had been a see concerning the labor charge. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The trial court moved to strike down the evidence of the oral contract. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) It also ruled the contract unenforceable on the ground of public policy.Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The judge had reasoned the labor charge was exorbitant. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The courts reversed the trial courts judgment, which discount the carpenters action against the store owner to recover under an oral contract, because they failed to submit the contract question to the jury. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) The case was remanded for a radical trial, if the parties were advised to do so. Jessee v. Smith 278 S.E. 2d 793 (Va. 1981) This case is similar to Jones v. Star Credit Corp. because monetary value was an issue of controversy. The monetary value of this job was not made clear or explained properly to the Plaintiff beforehand. ConclusionBecause the salesman was dishonest in his dealings with Jones, and did not reveal the actual price value of the home freezer unit, the courts go out find the contract unconscionable based on previous rulings of similar cases. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) The Virginia court go away apply the same standard as set forth in Jones, and result not apply any other standard. In each of these cases, people were misled into or coerced into signing a contract, when they were unsure of the terms and conditions, and were without counsel, causing the defendant to feel as if they had the upper right hand in the matter. In each case the plaintiff was left unknowing the actual monetary value of the issue, the defendant failed to reveal it. A contract is considered unconscionable when the defendant does not take the proper steps to agree that the plaintiff is made fully aware and understands what is involved in the contract, and also the exact monetary value in the contract. So in answer to the presented question, yes, the Virginia courts are highly likely to follow the unconscionability doctrine that has been set out and applied in the Jones v. Star Credit Corp. case.