Sign in or 
Welcome! This is a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Share this
GRCC Law Courses/primiani Home
|
fprimiani |
Latest page update: made by fprimiani
, Oct 3 2009, 2:24 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by fprimiani
1 word added 2 words deleted 1 widget added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MeLindaharvey | Question under what circumstances party use an adehesion | 1 | Jan 30 2010, 11:06 PM EST by AnhNgo | ||
|
Thread started: Oct 21 2009, 10:59 PM EDT
Watch
A Montana woman who bought a used motor home she said was so drenched in pet urine that even $17,000 in repairs and janitorial work couldn't salvage it can sue the dealer, the Montana Supreme Court ruled.
Lou Hayes Woodruff purchased a 2002 Alfa motor home in March 2006 from Bretz RV & Marine for nearly $135,000. When the weather warmed up, the motor home began to smell, Woodruff said in a lawsuit filed in January 2007 in District Court in Missoula. Woodruff hired a restoration and janitorial service, which inspected the motor home and found pet urine "in great quantities throughout the entire carpet" as well as urine wicking in some walls. The areas were determined to be "non-salvageable due to extreme amounts of urine," the lawsuit said Woodruff said she was not informed about the damage before the purchase. She's seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. In response to Woodruff's lawsuit, Bretz moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the purchase contract. The District Court granted the motion. Woodruff appealed, arguing that the arbitration clause was not within her reasonable expectations as a consumer and because she did not knowingly waive her constitutional rights to a jury trial and to access the court system. The Supreme Court, in a 4-2 ruling, said the contract met the requirements of an "adhesion contract," in which one party drafts the contract and the other party has no ability to negotiate the terms. The court said such contracts are unenforceable against the "weaker" party when it "is not within the reasonable expectations of the party" or "is unduly oppressive, unconscionable or against public policy." The Supreme Court said the first condition was enough to resolve the appeal.
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
http://www.missoulian.com/news
|
||||
| Darlene_Murray | Get-Away Car driver for Maurice Clemmens may be charged with Murder | 2 | Dec 3 2009, 2:26 PM EST by Darlene_Murray | ||
|
Thread started: Dec 1 2009, 8:56 PM EST
Watch
We discussed this during Pols& 200, Sec B today. The question was asked whether they man who waited for Clemmens and drove the getaway car could be charged with Murder because he knew what Clemmens was doing. I just watched the news and Ed Troyer (Police Spokesman) stated that if the man knew before and after what Clemmens was going to do, he would be charged with Murder. I am wondering if there is precedent to support that charge? Obviously, this particular situation has not occurred, at least in WA, but is there previous cases where a get-away driver is charged with the same crime?
|
|||||
| anguyen1811 | Commerce Clause | 1 | Nov 25 2009, 1:11 AM EST by Parker_Cayce | ||
|
Thread started: Oct 21 2009, 5:55 PM EDT
Watch
How does the Commerce clause restrict the ability of states to regulate interstate commerce?
|
|||||
Showing 3 of 28 threads for this page
- view all
