Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
24. Will the mechanic be able to enforce the landscaper's promise to pay the additional $2,000?
A mechanic agreed in writing to make repairs to a landscaper's truck for $12,000. The mechanic properly made the repairs, but when the landscaper tendered payment, the mechanic refused to deliver the truck unless the landscaper promised to pay an additional $2,000. The customary charge for such work was $14,000. Because the landscaper needed the truck immediately to fulfill existing contractual obligations, and because no rental trucks of the same type were available, the landscaper promised in writing to pay the mechanic an additional $2,000. The mechanic then delivered the truck.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. Although there is no substantive unconscionability because the customary charge for the repairs was $14,000, there is procedural unconscionability. The landscaper had no alternative rental trucks available and needed the truck immediately to fulfill existing contractual obligations, which means the landscaper lacked a meaningful choice. Courts will not enforce contracts of adhesion, which will make the subsequent contract for the additional $2,000 unenforceable.
B is incorrect. Under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 177 (1981), undue influence will make a contract voidable. Undue influence is typically based on the relationship between the parties and exists when one party exerts unfair pressure or persuasion over the other. Here, it is true that the landscaper agreed to pay the additional $2,000 because there were no other rental trucks available and the mechanic needed to fulfill existing contractual obligations, but no facts suggest the mechanic used those reasons to force the landscaper into the agreement.
C is incorrect. It is true that the landscaper could have obtained the truck through legal action, but it would be unreasonable to expect the landscaper to file a lawsuit and default on his other contractual obligations while he waiting for a judgment in his favor. Under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350 (1981), the non-breaching party is expected to mitigate damages. In this case, defaulting on all other contractual obligations might be viewed by some as unreasonably increasing damages.
D is incorrect. As discussed above, this contract is likely unenforceable because it is a contract of adhesion, which means one party has substantially more power than the other when creating the contract. Here, the mechanic had all the bargaining power because the mechanic had physical possession of the truck and the landscaper had no alternative rental truck options but needed a truck to fulfill existing contractual obligations.