Reference no: EM133811012

Question

A cursory examination of the Mohawk Carpet Corporation contract reveals a number of issues, indicating that the seller is significantly favored. The conventional form of the contract compels the buyer or guarantor to provide a great deal of personal and financial information, whereas the seller is only required to divulge a limited amount of information. The seller may gain an unfair edge in negotiations and any ensuing conflicts as a result of this substantial information mismatch. The "take-it-or-leave-it" nature of standard form contracts usually leaves customers with little opportunity to bargain for better terms. These contracts frequently include clauses that give the authoring party-in this case, the seller-a disproportionate advantage while providing the buyer with few protections. Such contracts include a number of inherent legal hazards. Such contracts include a number of inherent legal hazards. Unconscionability, a theory that allows courts to reject terms that are unduly unfair or biased, is one of the main issues. While substantive unconscionability concentrates on the unfairness of the conditions themselves, procedural unconscionability can result from a lack of bargaining or the buyer's incapacity to comprehend complicated agreements. Another possible problem is breach of contract, which can happen if one party doesn't carry out their end of the bargain. The non-breaching party may be entitled to damages or other legal remedies as a result. Another risk is misrepresentation, especially if the seller gives inaccurate or deceptive information about the good or service. This may provide the buyer the right to demand damages or the revocation of the agreement. Furthermore, the contract may contravene laws against unfair trade practices, which are intended to shield customers from dishonest or exploitative corporate activities, depending on its particular wording and conduct. These problems highlight how crucial it is to carefully go over all contract provisions and get legal counsel in order to make sure that the buyer's rights are sufficiently protected against any hazards.

Do you agree with him? Why or why not?