Latish is a young lady who is a human resource clerk, who owns a five-unit apartment complex. While she lives in one of the units, the others are occupied by tenants. Judson which is a Washer and Dryer Service is in the business of leasing used washers and dryers to apartment landlords for a contracted lease term.
Judson contacts Latish and offers to lease one washer and one dryer. Latish being young inexperience, and anxious, cause of the washer and dryers in her apartment are old and worn out and she wants to keep her tenants happy: she foolishly sign an agreement without reading the whole contract, she only read the front of the contract not bothering to read the back of the contract or ask questions about it, Latish may not have none there was more on the back of the paper because it was not told to her.
She enters into a contract for five years not seeing the clause on the back stating an automatic renewal for an additional 15 years if not contacted by her by certified mail with in 90 days of the end of her five ears. Now sense Latish called to late to terminate her contract and she does not want to make anymore payments Judson can sue her for breach of contract. Latish could argue that she was unaware of the clause and that it was not told to her. According to ( Mallory, Barnes, Bowers, & Landwards. 201 2) to distinguish an offer, courts look for three requirements.
First, they look for some objective indication of a present intent to contract on the part of the offer. Second, they look for specificity, or definiteness, in the terms of the alleged offer. Third, they look to see whether the alleged offer has been communicated to the offered. In this case It is likely that Latish can use the third option in court, because even though it is her obligation to read the whole contract before signing it, it is also the obligation of the offer to at least inform the offered to read the whole contract before signing it and then if the offered does not read it all it is out of the offers hands.
Judson has a contract with Latish and he can take it to court and it will actually be up to the courts weather they will enforce the contract or not. Judson can argue that it was up to Latish to read over the whole agreement, she own a business don’t she know to look over an agreement before signing, because being ignorant of the law do not stand in a court of law. Godson’s salesperson had no morals or Ethics about him for he went to Latish deceivingly not telling her of the auto renewal clause, and if Judson sues Latish knowing she was young and inexperience is just taking advantage of the young lady which is very unethical.
According to ( Mallory, Barnes, Bowers, & Landwards. 201 2) Application of the Common Law of Contracts Article 2 of the USC applies to contracts for the sale of goods, but it does not apply to contracts for the sale of real estate or intangibles such as stocks and bonds, because those kinds of property do not constitute goods. Article 2 also does not apply to service contracts. Contracts for the sale of real estate, services, and intangibles are governed by the common law of contracts. So therefore the USC Article AAA does not apply to this case, because article 2 also does not apply to service contracts.
Are there any government or private entities available for business that treats consumers unfairly? Yes there should be one in every state in my state it is the BOB Better Business Bureau. In conclusion Latish being young and naive and really not knowing any better her fate lies in the hands of the courts weather they fill she was done wrong or not, weather Judson took advantage of her or not, and no Latish did not read the whole contract, but should she have to pay for that mistake the next 15 years. I say No and hope the courts do too.