Jennifer Mitchell
LEX 120 500 2014FA
Compare and Contrast Case Brief
Case: Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd.
Citation: 274 S.E.2d 206 (1981)
Facts: Defendant argues that if the contract is not retracted, the Court should find it unconscionable and refuse to administer it. There was no disparity of negotiating power between the parties. Plaintiff was not mandated to accept defendant's terms, for there were other private and public schools accessible to educate the child. The clause providing that tuition payments would be non-refundable is reasonable when considered in light of the expense to defendant in preparing to educate the child and in reserving a space for him.
Issue: Is a contract that makes tuition for a private school non-refundable unconscionable?
Answers: No. The contract is not unconscionable. A court will generally decline to enforce a contract on the ground of unconscionability only when the inequality of the bargain is so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and where the terms are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them, and no honest and fair person would accept them. Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 10 S.Ct. 134, 33 L.Ed. 393 (1889)
Reasoning: Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof that an enforceable agreement to refund his payments existed. Hence, the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Likewise, defendant did not prove, as a matter of law, that no agreement
