Should the common law courts recognise the need for a general doctrine of unconscionability?

Type :

Presentation

Pages :

7 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

05/21/2008

Category :

Law & contracts

Sub category :

Civil law

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 14.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction
The key words in the definition
Considering every impact that plays a role in a contract
The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co
The case of a set of war bonds
Conclusion
Bibliography

Abstract

The doctrine of unconscionability remains a venue of debate and controversy not only for legal scholars, but for judges and attorneys in this country and abroad. The idea of unconscionability is in itself problematic. How can a judge, jury, or attorney deem what is or is not fair? Even if an agreement is deemed unfair and thus unconscionable, do the courts even have a right to interfere into matters where two parties exercised their free will and entered into a legally binding agreement? These are a few of the problems that immediately surface around the doctrine and practice of unconscionability. It is an important issue because it is very much entangled with questions of how much power the courts have in the every decisions and agreements that citizens make each and every day. Despite these pragmatic questions, the doctrine of unconscionability should be recognised by the common law courts because it promotes fairness and balance in a society, which in the most basic sense, is what the courts were originally designed to protect. The precedent of unconscionability is one way that the courts can define an abstract and subjective idea like fairness.