Circuit City v Mantor Brief

Circuit City v Mantor Brief - participating with the AIRP...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Paul Mantor Issue Can Circuit City enforce an unconscionable contract against Paul Mantor? Rule Offer - 1)Present intent to offer 2)definiteness of terms 3)communicated to offeror Acceptance - 1)Present intent to accept 2)same terms (mirror image rule or UCC 2-207) and 3)communicated to offeree Consideration - 1)Legal Value (money or to do/not do something not/able to legally required/do to) 2)Bargained for (both ways) Unconscionability - 1)Absence of meaningful choice 2)terms unreasonably advantageous to one of the parties Procedural Unconscionability - unfairness in the bargaining process. Substantive Unconscionability - terms that are oppressive, unreasonably one-sided, or unjustifiably harsh. Application Mantor argues that the contract to arbitrate with Circuit City was absent of any meaningful choice, in 1998 two Circuit City managers approached Mantor an required he sign the new AIRP agreement. Even though an option to opt out was given to Mantor, the management told him not
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: participating with the AIRP will not give him a future with Circuit City, which meant a termination and does not allow a meaningful choice to Mantor. Mantor argues his forced signing of the arbitration and the required fee of $75 to bring about a complaint for arbitration is unfair to Mantor. Even though Circuit City has a policy to waive the fee, the one determining eligibality to waive is Circuit City and Mantor would have been able to get his disupute settled with the court for free. Circuit City argues that Mantor had a choice, because the AIRP was introduced in 1995, Mantor was visited by managers in 1998 with the full policy including the option to opt-out form that Mantor did not utilize. Circuit City argues that the $75 fee can be waived to qualified participants and is not an unfair terms presented in the arbitration contract. Conclusion No Circuit City may not enforce the contract with Mantor, because it is unconscionable with the procedural and substantive content....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online