Chapter 15- Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 10
“Gianni Sport was a New York manufacturer and distributor of women’s clothing. Gantos was a clothing retailer headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1980, Gantos’s sales total was 20 times greater than Gianni Sport’s, and in this industry, buyers were “in the driver’s seat.” In June 1980, Gantos submitted to Gianni Sport a purchase order for women’s holiday clothing to be delivered on October 10, 1980. The purchase order contained the following clause:
Buyer reserves the right to terminate by notice to Seller all or any part of this Purchase Order with respect to Goods that have not actually been shipped by Seller or as to Goods which are not timely delivered for any reason whatsoever.
Gianni Sport made the goods in question especially for Gantos. This holiday order comprised 20 to 22 percent of Gianni Sport’s business. In late September 1980, before the goods were shipped, Gantos canceled the order. Was the cancellation clause unconscionable?” (Mallor 433). According to the doctrine of unconscionability, the cancellation by Gantos was unconscionable. Gantos was a larger company, and therefore was able to determine the terms of the contract, and Gianni Sport, being the weaker of the two, had no practical choice but to adhere to the terms. Under the UCC, the courts have the power to manipulate the provision containing the unconscionable terms to make the contract just. In this case, I believe the courts would take out the clause that the order can be cancelled at any time before shipping and would make Gantos pay for the order to Gianni sports.
Chapter 16- Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 7
“Dyer purchased a used Ford from Walt Bennett Ford for $5,895. She signed a written contract, which showed that no taxes were included in the sales price. Dyer contended, however, that the salesperson who