22 Mar Erie Doctrine ExerciseIdaho has a statute that prohibits the introduction of evidence of unconscionability in contract actions. T
Assignment: Assignment 3 – Erie Doctrine Exercise
Idaho has a statute that prohibits the introduction of evidence of unconscionability in contract actions. The statute was enacted because the legislature felt that the courts had been invalidating too many contracts on the basis of claims of unconscionability, with the result that many businesses were deciding to stop doing business in Idaho to avoid having large numbers of their contracts deemed to be unenforceable.
In federal court, judges have adopted, given the absence of any Federal rules on the matter, the practice of allowing any evidence relevant to a contract dispute to be presented.
Kramerica Distributors, Inc., a New York corporation based in New York, sues Elaine, an Idaho citizen, in Idaho federal court for breach of contract for her failure to make $100,000 in payments on men’s undergarments (the “Bro”) she purchased from them. At trial, Elaine offers evidence that the contract between her and Kramerica is unconscionable.
Kramerica objects to the introduction of this evidence, citing the Idaho statute prohibiting such evidence. How should the court rule on the objection?
4-5 pages, United States statutes (3), United States cases (3) to support.
Idaho has a statute that prohibits the introduction of evidence of unconscionability in contract actions. The statute was enacted because the legislature felt that the courts had been invalidating too many contracts on the basis of claims of unconscionability, with the result that many businesses were deciding to stop doing business in Idaho to avoid having large numbers of their contracts deemed to be unenforceable.
In federal court, judges have adopted, given the absence of any Federal rules on the matter, the practice of allowing any evidence relevant to a contract dispute to be presented.
Kramerica Distributors, Inc., a New York corporation based in New York, sues Elaine, an Idaho citizen, in Idaho federal court for breach of contract for her failure to make $100,000 in payments on men’s undergarments (the “Bro”) she purchased from them. At trial, Elaine offers evidence that the contract between her and Kramerica is unconscionable.
Kramerica objects to the introduction of this evidence, citing the Idaho statute prohibiting such evidence. How should the court rule on the objection?
