Contract Law

[Thomas]

This thread is to continue the discussion without derailing the original thread further: http://www.corollaforum.com/threads/tires-for-life.4286/

There is no "solution" nor "philosophical" consideration around a contract. You get what's in it period. It it's fuzzy (generally on purpose from the vendor) and you signed it anyway hoping for the best then it's a civil matter for courts.

What are you even talking about?

Exactly. There is nothing philosophical about contracts, and many are pretty air tight from a legal standpoint just to make sure there are no loopholes. The only thing philosophical are contracts that are deemed unconscionable by a court. An example of such a contract might be if someone promised to give someone a kidney in exchange for an Iphone. Should the kid who signed the contract take it to court, the contract would be made null and void.

Judges (at least in the U.S.) do not throw out contracts because they deem them "unconscionable". They might use their soap boxes to call such contracts unconscionable, but they will use the law to rule a contract void ab initio. That means it was never a contract because it legally couldn't be a contract. You can't create a contract with illegal terms. Exchanging body parts is illegal (for the general public).

 

[rk97]

Contract law is not my area of practice, but "unconscionable" contracts are exceedingly rare. You're talking about things like cross-collateral agreements that are deemed so complicated, lay persons are deemed incapable of understanding them.

The cross-collateral agreement referenced is in most case-law books for law schools. A rent-to-own place would get people paying on multiple items, but they worded the payment terms so that no single item was paid-off in total until EVERYTHING was paid off. So if I was renting a $500 couch, a $1,000 TV, and a $50 blender; and I had paid back $1500 (toward the TV and the couch), the payment terms would apply $1498 to the TV/couch, and $2 to the blender. Then when I missed my blender payment, they could repossess all 3 items, based on the $1 outstanding on each.

That's the only example I can recall of a court deeming a contract unconscionable. I'm sure others exist, but that's the kind of extreme scenario required. It has to not only be unfair, but also understandably difficult for the party to understand.

What's more common are disputes about terms, or vagueness in agreements - which is why the majority of contracts have arbitration clauses that prevent litigation.

I'd be interested to see the 'free' tire contract that started this conversation.