Advice on Advancing Funds against Military Retirees Pensions Case Study

Advice on Advancing Funds against Military Retirees Pensions - Case Study Example Unconscionability is a legal principle in contract law relating to conditions which are so much unfair or substantially skewed to benefit the party with greater bargaining power. As such, the contracts made therefrom negate the values of good conscience in the contract. Generally, an unconscionable agreement is considered to be invalid because the disadvantaged party would not have agreed to it under reasonable circumstances. As such, the party with greater bargaining power is not usually permitted by courts to enjoy the benefit(s) because the contract lacks sufficient consideration by the other party for a fair share of the risks and benefits. Unconscionable contracts are determined by assessing the conditions of the contractors when the agreement was made, such as each party’s knowledge or mental competence, age, and bargaining power. Other equally vital factors are; lack of options and acts of inducement. Wasik noted that unconscionable behavior is also occasioned by misrepresentation of fact and fraud, especially where intentional distortion of fact results in the loss of a valuable asset. When an individual or party benefits from a contract to the detriment of another, the perpetrator may be liable for criminal fraud or deceit in a civil action. In Universal Grading Service v. eBay, Inc., 2009 U.S., eBay’s actions of influencing the value of the coin in its online auction processes were found to be conscionable because it was not fraudulent. In this case, the test for unconscionability will depend on whether the military retirees had the ability to match the Client’s when they were forming the contract.