THE FACTS
UCC
PRICE & DISPARITY
CONTRACT LAW BASICS
Court Decision / Holding
100

These were the plaintiffs in the case

Welfare recipients

100

This section of the UCC governs unconscionability

Section 2-302

100

The court was heavily influenced by this gap between value and price

extreme price disparity

100

What are the three basic elements required to form a valid contract?

Offer, acceptance, and consideration

100

What did the court ultimately rule about the contract between the Jones family and Star Credit?

The contract was unconscionable

200

This was the product purchased

A home freezer

200

Unconscionability is determined at this point in time

At the time the contract was made

200

Credit charges alone exceeded this amount

The retail value of the freezer

200

What principle says courts generally enforce voluntary agreements between parties?

Freedom of contract

300

This was the freezer’s approximate retail value at the time of sale

$300

300

The court warned that unconscionability should not be reduced to just this kind of formula

mathematical ratio

300

Name one reason a court might refuse to enforce a contract

Duress, fraud, mistake, or unconscionability

300

What did the court decide about the remaining money Star Credit wanted to collect?

The seller could not collect the remaining balance

400

Before all added charges, the freezer was sold for approximately this amount

$900

400

The seller knew this about the plaintiffs at the time of sale

They had very limited financial resources

400

Besides price, what other factor did the court say must be considered when deciding if a contract is unconscionable?

The circumstances of the transaction and the parties involved

500

After credit charges, insurance, and tax, the total price came to approximately this amount

About $1,234.80

500

The extreme price difference led the court to conclude this about the seller’s behavior

Knowing advantage was taken of the plaintiffs

500

What economic problem discussed in the presentation refers to one party having more knowledge than the other?

Information asymmetry

500

Why did the court believe the buyers had already paid enough?

Because they had already paid about $600 for a freezer worth around $300, so the seller had already received more than the value