GM520 Keller Graduate School of Management
Title: Outrageous retailer fees for vendors
Submitted by: Chelsea Walker
Course code: GM520ON
Date: September 22, 2011
Outrageous retailer fees for vendors
Are guidelines and charge back fees negotiable?
Guidelines and charge back fees required by large retailers are negotiable since they confer with some of its potential holders and the greater rights than are conferred on the contract assignees which are not negotiable instruments. This fact is supported by the illustration that if sold equipment turns out to be defective, a buyer may assert a payment defense to the manufacturer under defined circumstances such as; the institution had no reason of knowing that the equipment had defects. The buyer would pursue remedies which may prove illustratory especially if a manufacturer is experiencing some financial difficulties, bankruptcy or has gone out of business (Obadina, 2010).
The doctrine of unconscionability
The doctrine of unconscionability is a legal principle which the courts nullifies or modifies the contractual provisions which puts one party at the mercy of the other party. In contractual law, a contract which is Unconscionable is a contract which is unjust and extremely one-sided in favor of a party or an individual with the super bargaining power. Cases of unconscionability are determined through examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made such as the age, bargaining power and mental capacities of the party (Davis 2010). This doctrine is normally applied only in situations where it would be an affront to the judicial system's integrity to enforce those programs. There is normally no standard procedure to follow while applying this doctrine as the court will only apply its moral sense and conscience to the facts presented before it and make a subjective judgment (Manning 2011).
The doctrine of Unconscionability (Water v. Min, Ltd) should be available as a defense...
References: Davis, KE 2010, 'PENALTY CLAUSES THROUGH THE LENS OF UNCONSCIONABILITY DOCTRINE: BIRCH V. UNION OF TAXATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 70030 ', McGill Law Journal, 55, 1, pp. 151-164, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 July 2011.
Obadina, OO 2010, 'GETTING BACK TO THE PURPOSE: ANALYZING JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P. IN LIGHT OF SECTION 1(B) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT ', Marquette Law Review, 94, 2, pp. 679-719, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 July 2011.
Manning, JF 2011, 'SEPARATION OF POWERS AS ORDINARY INTERPRETATION ', Harvard Law Review, 124, 8, pp. 1941-2040, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 July 2011.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document