leb.pp.14 (capacity)

Did dominant party profit excessively 1 profit 2 did

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: vantage of another advantage Factors: Factors: 1. Did dominant party profit excessively? 1. profit 2. Did subservient party have independent 2. independent advice? advice Undue Influence Undue UT v. Yarbrough Yarbrough gets the house; undue Yarbrough influence by UT influence McIntosh v. Dowdy No, because no undue influence (deal was No, suggested by independent party and could have been very good for Burch had she lived longer) lived Unconscionable Contracts Unconscionable Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Unconscionable Jones v. Star Credit Unconscionable Unconscionable Contracts Unconscionable Doughty v. Idaho Frozen Foods (1) Procedural Unconscionability? Procedural (Unequal bargaining power exploited) exploited No, Doughty was businessperson businessperson and contract negotiated on behalf and of 1,200 member organization of 1,200 Unconscionable Contracts Doughty v. Idaho Frozen Foods (2) Substantive Unconscionability? (Oppressive … deprives one party of any benefits or remedies) No, contract terms neither surprising nor unfair … if weather conditions better, could have been very favorable deal for Doughty...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/28/2013 for the course LEB 03205 taught by Professor Pederson during the Spring '11 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online