Essay Writing Help on Contract Law: Be Careful What You Sign

Contract Law: Be Careful What You Sign

In order for Sudson to effectively sue for a breach of contract, it must be ascertained that a contract existed in the case. The features of the case that make it an enforceable contract include mutual assent, the issuance of a consideration, legality of the terms and ability to contract in both parties. In the presence of these factors, the contract and all its terms are enforceable (Mann & Roberts, 2015). It is therefore difficult for Letisha to argue successfully against about the enforcement of the automatic renewal clause.

In contracting, parties involved in the contract agreement are assumed to have read and understood the terms of any written contract. The signature of the contract confirms that the parties have both assented to all the terms therein. Consequently, because Letisha personally signed the contract, it may be difficult to defend her on the contract case. However, the automatic renewal clause included in the contract can be considered unethical since it does not comply with normal procedures for including automatic renewal clauses. Letisha’s defense could therefore argue on the ethical considerations in the agreement. For instance, Automatic renewal clauses are normally applicable in cases where they are planned to result in renewal for a period equivalent to the initial period of the contract. In this case, the initial period of the contract was 5 years. It is only reasonable and expected that any automatic renewal clause should be for a period of a maximum of 5 months. Therefore, have only ethical grounds for her defense. However, this might only enable the reduction of the automatic renewal period. On the other hand, there are no legal grounds for the unenforceability of the automatic renewal clause because from the signatures on the contract agreement, Letisha assented to the conditions.

In the operation of automatic renewal clauses in contracts, several conditions must be fulfilled by the contract agreement in order for the clause to be considered valid and legally binding. For one, the clause must be conspicuous as well as clear. In this consideration, the clarity of the clause is undeniable as it describes clearly the conditions for automatic renewal, the period of renewal and the period for cancellation prior to renewal (Mann & Roberts, 2015). However, determination of whether the clause was conspicuous depends on how it was represented on paper. For instance, by being included at the back of the page and amongst other clauses, it was difficult for it to be conspicuous as it is. Secondly, the customer’s assent to the agreement containing the clause is also necessary for the automatic renewal clause to be enforceable. By signing the contract document, this was an affirmation that the terms in the automatic renewal clause were acceptable. The terms of service offer must also be clearly articulated. This involves the clarification of terms as was stated in the contract. It can therefore be concluded that based on the legal requirements of the automatic renewal clause, the agreement is enforceable. However, this comes into debate based on the lack of conspicuity in the clause; a fact, which Letisha can say, led to her inability to see it.

On the ethical aspects of the case, the enforcement of the automatic renewal clause may be bound by ethical theories. An act is considered morally acceptable when it takes place for common good or when it is good in itself (Mann & Roberts, 2015). In including the automatic renewal clause in the agreement, Sudson performs an act, which is not morally acceptable based on the premise that it is designed for the benefit of the company alone. At the same time, the act translates into an exploitation of ignorant consumers based on its extended period of automatic renewal. Automatic Renewal clauses are ethical only in case that they are indicated to be for a period equal to or less than the initial contract period. Secondly, in failing to make the automatic renewal clause as conspicuous as is required, Sudson performs a moral wrong by virtue of the act being wrong s well as its being done for the good of only the seller. These two factors bring about need for ethical considerations in deciding the case. An important set of regulations that can further assist in making the right decision is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Article 2 of the uniform Commercial Code outlines the conditions for contracting and enforceability of contracts. According to part 2 of this article, a contract is enforceable if it satisfies all the conditions of a written contract and is not based on fraud. In this article, the condition set for goods costing more than 500 USD is enforceable only if it is written and signed by both parties. In addition, the article further asserts that the enforceability of a contract depends on the acceptance of both parties that such a contract has been entered into. From the case at hand, it can be concluded that with or without the automatic renewal clause, a contract existed between Sudson and Letisha. This is based on her acceptance that she signed the contract and the provision of the written copy of the contract. This article is applicable in confirming the applicability of this contract and its enforceability. Consequently, based on the provisions of the uniform Commercial Code on contracts, the case can be said to be legal and thus the contract is enforceable by law.

In the USA, different states have different regulations for handling cases against businesses. In most cases, businesses that exploit customers can be reported to civil courts where the cases are determined (Mann & Roberts, 2015). The solution of the case that can be lodged by Letisha in a civil court may only be found within the court’s judgment. There are no organized entities that protect the consumers from being exploited by businesses unless the dealings refer to financial services. For instance, if Letisha had obtained financial services from any institution, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have fought for her. However, in the absence of any other protective entities, it is expected that the case can only be solved in a civil court following legal procedures.

In suing Letisha for breach of contract, particularly the automatic renewal clause, several factors will have to be considered. First, there must be a confirmation that a contract, which includes agreement to the automatic renewal clause, was sign. This agreement can be confirmed by the written copy of the contract, which include the clause in question. Second, it must also be ascertained that there was an acceptable consideration prior to signing the contract. The copy of the contract itself is sufficient consideration and by signing the contract, it can be confirmed that both parties assented to its contents. In addition to this, the contact was entered into by individuals deemed legally capable of contracting and is in itself legal (Mann & Roberts, 2015).

On the automatic renewal clause, it can also be confirmed that the clause was clear and was assented to by both parties. The question as to whether there was a breach of contract by failing to adhere to the terms of the automatic renewal clause is therefore eminent. The contract law does not provide exemptions to enforceability of a contract due to the failure of a party to read the agreement details. In a case of a written and signed contract, it is assumed that the signees of the contract read and confirmed the contents of the contract prior to signing. Consequently, failure to comply with the terms and conditions set by the contract agreement can be concluded to be a breach of contract. Being liable for breach of the automatic renewal clause, Letisha could be compelled to compensate Sudson for the cost of the automatic renewal for the period of the proposed renewal. In her defense, Letisha can cite neither ignorance nor fraud for her failure to comply with the contract conditions in their entirety (Mann & Roberts, 2015).

In conclusion, this case brings to light the importance of reading any agreement before signing. While Letisha may also feel that it was unethical of Sudson to make the automatic renewal clause inconspicuous and to include an extended duration of automatic renewal as part of its conditions, she has no defense on legal grounds since the contract was signed and thus confirmed to be enforceable. In addition to this, it is assumed that she read and understood the conditions of the agreement prior to signing the contract. Sudson on the other hand, stands to gain for executing their end of the contract agreement.


Mann, R. & Robberts, B. (2015). Smith & Roberson’s Business Law 15th Ed. South-Western Cengage Learning.

Uniform Commercial Code Article 2. (2003). Retrieved from