benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A furniture dealer sold furniture to a young couple with less than perfect…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A furniture dealer sold furniture to a young couple with less than perfect credit. They signed a contract that said that if they purchased new items on the account, they would not own the old purchases until the new ones were paid in full. That provision was in fine print on the reverse side of the papers. When husband lost his job, they had by that time paid for everything purchased on the account except for one chair they bought a few weeks earlier. The store sued, trying to repossess all furniture ever sold to the couple. Will the couple likely prevail on a defense of unconscionability?

choices

  1. No, because they might be able to find another store to sell them furniture, which proves that there was no lack of bargaining power.
  2. No, because the store was nice enough to extend credit, and the couple should be expected to pay for everything before they own any of it.
  3. Yes, because any time a seller puts terms in fine print it is proof of bad faith and unconscionability.
  4. Yes, because a combination of factors makes it likely that the court will recognize unconscionability under these circumstances.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

Official source

initial import