Use a newspaper, news magazine, or the internet (including articles posted on CANVAS by instructor) to find a current article (if uncertain, please see the instructor to have your topic approved) related to business law to write .Briefly summarize your article and include some interesting facts or highlights. Lastly, and most importantly, discuss any concerns, issues, or thoughts you have about the subject matter raised in the article. This will be done by writing an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) about the article.

Note on the syllabus calendar that there are four categories for the assignments.The IRAC must apply to the subjects shown below:

IRAC Basics:

Issue(s) -are written in the form of questions!These issues are questions one might ask regarding how the law applies to the article you have chosen.

Rules- are the laws/rules that the writer thinks may apply to the issues.

Analysis -is where the writer either proves or disproves the application of the rules.This is a major focus of the paper and presentation....critical thinking must be applied.

Conclusion- will take one of two approaches.First, if the court has decided the case, do you agree with the decision?Why, or why not?If the court has yet to make a decision, what do you think needs to be done, and why.

There is no minimum or limitation to the length of the paper.The writer's approach is to be concise, organized, and complete in the presentation of the case. If you need any further clarification of this assignment, please make an appointment to see me during office hours.

Be sure to attach the news article/court case to your essay. If the article/case is not attached a score will not be given. The attachment can be in the form of a link to a web page.

SAMPLE IRAC paper

Summary

Robert Eaton purchased a home from CMH Homes in 2009. The purchase contract

contained an arbitration clause that applied to any dispute Eaton had over the home. The

contract, however, stated that CMH homes had the right to sue in court for any collateral, to

obtain a monetary judgment, or to enforce a security agreement. The contract also contained an

anti-waiver provision stating that CMH's right to lawsuit did not constitute a waiver to compel

arbitration regarding any other dispute, including filing a counterclaim. If this occurred, it would

require Eaton to proceed in two different forums (court and arbitration). Eaten then filed a suit

with Lincoln County Circuit Court alleging that his home was defective and misrepresented as

new in 2009 at the time of purchase. The trial court overruled CMH's motion for arbitration, to

which CMH appealed. This case was brought to Missouri Supreme Court. Eaton alleged that the

agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable (Wu, 2015).

[Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc, 2015]

Issue

Was the arbitration clause of Eaton's contract with CMH Homes unconscionable, and

does it render the contract invalid?

Rules

Unconscionable business contracts may be void because they are contrary to public

policy. A contract is deemed unconscionable when it is judged as grossly unfair or "void of

conscience." In this case,

substantive unconscionability

would be put into question. Courts may

consider a contract or clause to be substantively unconscionable if it deprives one party of the

benefits of the agreement or leaves one party without remedy for nonperformance by the other. If

unconscionable, the contract may be invalid (Miller, 2014).

Another important aspect in this case is mutuality, or lack thereof.

Mutuality of contract

means that both parties are bound to an agreement that benefits them both. The defendant alleges

that a lack of mutuality was another aspect of the contract that deemed it unconscionable (Eaton

v. CMH Homes, Inc., 2015).

Analysis

At first glance, it seems that Eaton's various claims would hold up in court and the

contract be deemed invalid. Eaton argued that the arbitration agreement lacked mutuality. The

clause in essence limited his capacity to air his grievances while allowing CMH the freedom to

sue in court. The anti-waiver provision is also oppressiveCMH is allowed to take matters to

court, but Eaton would not be able to bring his own defenses or counterclaims into court, forcing

him to proceed in two different forums. The results of this hypothetical situation would probably

be inconsistent and therefore unfair. This clause meets the requirements for substantive

unconscionability, depriving Eaton the right to defend himself or have justice served in a manner

that is fair and mutual (Miller, 2014).

The court ruled that while the anti-waiver provision in the arbitration clause is

unconscionable, it can be severed from the contract and the arbitration clause enforced. An

earlier Supreme Court case (

Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 2011)

set a precedent in that the court

will look at the contract as a whole to determine if it is valid or invalid. Since the anti-waiver

provision was severed from the contract, the rest of the contract can be upheld. Further, the court

asserted that a lack of mutuality does not render an arbitration contract unenforceable (Eaton v.

CMH Homes, Inc., 2015). Looking at the contract as a whole, the essential considerations were

metEaton purchased a home from CMH Homes and they delivered one at the specified date.

With the anti-waiver provision severed, the contract is not unconscionable and therefore valid

(Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc., 2015).

Conclusion

With minimal knowledge of contract law, it is extremely difficult to interpret and judge

cases like this one due to the many facets, rules, and exceptions involved. It was absolutely

imperative to have prior knowledge of previous contract law cases in order to successfully

navigate a case like this. In this particular instance, it seems that the court made a fair ruling

given the various standards brought to light by previous court cases dealing with similar issues. It

seemed fair and reasonable that the most nefarious aspect of the contract was severed while the

rest enforced. The contract, while not ideal for the plaintiff, can be reasonably and legally

upheld.

This case is a good example of a well-meaning person who sought a fair judgment in

court about a contract dispute that seemed unfair. It is quite evident that when accepting a

contract, laypersons must be extremely careful of what they are signing, because the court cannot

necessarily provide what is "right" or "deserved" if the law cannot reasonably back it up.

References

Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc. Supreme Court of Missouri. 26 May 2015.

Your Missouri Courts

.

N.p., n.d. Web. .

Miller, R. (2014).

Business law today: The essentials: Diverse ethical, online, and global

environment

(Tenth ed.) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Wu, G. (2015, June 4). MO supreme court enforces arbitration agreement despite finding portion

of clause unconscionable. In

Missouri & Kansas Class Action Law

. Retrieved June 26,

2015, from http://missourikansasclassactionlaw.com/2015/06/04/mo-supreme-court-

enforces-arbitration-agreement-despite-finding-portion-of-clause-unconscionable/