Question

7)

On April 30, 2016, Barack and George entered into
a bet on the outcome of the 2016 Kentucky Derby.
On January 28, 2017, Barack, who bet on the winner, approached George, seeking to collect the $3,000 George had wagered. George paid Barack the $3,000 wager but now seeks to recover the funds from Barack. Result?

8. Carl, a salesman for Smith, comes to Benson’s home and sells him a complete set of “gourmet cooking utensils” that are worth approximately $300. Benson, an eighty- year-old man living alone in a one-room efficiency apartment, signs a contract to buy the utensils for $1,450, plus a credit charge of $145, and to make pay- ment in ten equal monthly installments. Three weeks after Carl leaves with the signed contract, Benson decides he cannot afford the cooking utensils and has

no use for them. What can Benson do? Explain.

Answer 1

I hope I have addressed each part of the question you’ve asked. Please leave a like if you find this answer helpful, it really helps me a lot and motivates me in providing better answers in future. If you have any doubts, please let me know before leaving a dislike I would surely assist you. Thanks in advance for liking this answer.

7. Gambling Statutes.

Decision for Barack. As the wager was illegal, the contract was unenforceable on grounds of public policy. Neither party can successfully sue the other for breach nor recover for any performance rendered. So, if George had never paid, Barack would not have been able to enforce payment, but since George DID pay, he cannot force recovery either. The courts will not aid one wrongdoer by granting him restitution of a benefit conferred upon another party.

8. Unconscionable Contracts.

Benson is not bound to his obligation. The doctrine of "unconscionability" as set forth in the UCC would probably apply here. If it did, Benson could obtain release from the obligation for that reason. Smith may have used high pressure tactics and taken advantage of Benson's malleability as evidenced by the unreasonable price agreed to by Benson.

Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Whether a meaningful choice is present in a particular case can only be determined by consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the transaction. In many cases the meaningfulness of the choice is negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. The manner in which the contract was entered is also relevant to this consideration.