In re Louis Fleet v. United States Consumer Council United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1989. 95 B.R. 319.
What is my article about?
My article is a case brief. This case called Fleet versus U.S. Consumer Council (USCC) was decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1989. This case reflects how courts apply the unconscionability doctrine today in the U.S. In Fleet case, the defendant USCC represented that it could provide help to the consumers facing the loss of their homes through foreclosure. USCC then charged consumers $195.00 to $260.00 simply for referring them to an attorney. However, such a referral could be obtained for free through a bar association lawyer referral service. So Fleet brought this consumer class action against USCC. The central issue is that did USCC’s practice violate New Jersey law prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, which is based on the answer to the question of whether USCC’s practice is unconscionable. The court held that USCC’s practice was unconscionable and in violation of NJ UDAP.
Why did I choose an article about this article?
I want to learn defences of the formation of contracts recently and unconscionability is one important type. I choose this case for the reason that it is a judicial authority on the issue of the unconscionable contract.
What new things have I learned by reading this article?
The new and most important knowledge I have learned by reading this case brief is how to judge whether a contract is unconscionable. The plaintiff must show that a contract is both substantive unconscionable and procedurally unconscionable, which means that the unconscionability doctrine focuses not only on what a contract’s terms are but also on how a contract is formed.
A new story based on this case
Due to COVID-19, people are required to wear masks when they go outside. Last Monday, C planed to go to the City Hall for some business affairs. However, she did not have any mask and was in a hurry. When D knew it, he contacted C, expressing that he had enough masks and could provide some to C at the cost of $10 each. C and D entered into a contract with terms governing that D should provide 10 masks to C and C should pay $100 as consideration. After they enforced the contract, C found that masks were sold on Amazon for $2 each. C brings an action against D, arguing that this contract is deceptive and unconscionable for that she was charged $10 for a mask that was sold on Amazon only for $2. C maintains that the payment she made should be reimbursed. The court holds that both the claimant and defendant are individuals and compared with the defendant, the claimant is not the weaker party who tends to be subjected to exploitation. Although C has proved the substantive unconscionability but has failed to show procedural unconscionability. Therefore, the court would not award reimbursement of what C has paid.
My article is a case brief. This case called Fleet versus U.S. Consumer Council (USCC) was decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1989. This case reflects how courts apply the unconscionability doctrine today in the U.S. In Fleet case, the defendant USCC represented that it could provide help to the consumers facing the loss of their homes through foreclosure. USCC then charged consumers $195.00 to $260.00 simply for referring them to an attorney. However, such a referral could be obtained for free through a bar association lawyer referral service. So Fleet brought this consumer class action against USCC. The central issue is that did USCC’s practice violate New Jersey law prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, which is based on the answer to the question of whether USCC’s practice is unconscionable. The court held that USCC’s practice was unconscionable and in violation of NJ UDAP.
Why did I choose an article about this article?
I want to learn defences of the formation of contracts recently and unconscionability is one important type. I choose this case for the reason that it is a judicial authority on the issue of the unconscionable contract.
What new things have I learned by reading this article?
The new and most important knowledge I have learned by reading this case brief is how to judge whether a contract is unconscionable. The plaintiff must show that a contract is both substantive unconscionable and procedurally unconscionable, which means that the unconscionability doctrine focuses not only on what a contract’s terms are but also on how a contract is formed.
A new story based on this case
Due to COVID-19, people are required to wear masks when they go outside. Last Monday, C planed to go to the City Hall for some business affairs. However, she did not have any mask and was in a hurry. When D knew it, he contacted C, expressing that he had enough masks and could provide some to C at the cost of $10 each. C and D entered into a contract with terms governing that D should provide 10 masks to C and C should pay $100 as consideration. After they enforced the contract, C found that masks were sold on Amazon for $2 each. C brings an action against D, arguing that this contract is deceptive and unconscionable for that she was charged $10 for a mask that was sold on Amazon only for $2. C maintains that the payment she made should be reimbursed. The court holds that both the claimant and defendant are individuals and compared with the defendant, the claimant is not the weaker party who tends to be subjected to exploitation. Although C has proved the substantive unconscionability but has failed to show procedural unconscionability. Therefore, the court would not award reimbursement of what C has paid.
Comments
Post a Comment