¶ … Legal Thinking, Law Case, Ethics Case The court case of Regal finance Company, Ltd. And Regal Finance Company II, Ltd., Petitioners, v. Tex Star Motors, Inc., Respondent, is extremely significant to conducting business in the United States and to that involving collateral for automobiles in particular. Moreover, it attests to the fact that the standard one should hold for the circumstance in which a used-car dealer disposes of secured collateral is that set by the legal precedent of this particular case, and not the mandates of the Uniform Commercial Code (which involved article 9 in this particular case). Although wrangling of the interpretation of the aforementioned article in the UCC may have led to the initial decision In this case, one of the things that makes this case so notable is that initial decision was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of the state of Texas. In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the mandates found in the article 9 of the UCC.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that one of the effects of litigation is to set precedents. Court cases are used to establish precedents in any number of vertical industries and spheres of life. This fact certainly applies to judgments issued by the various Supreme Courts found in different parts of the country regarding both civil and criminal matters. Thus, when attempting to determine the proper standard to uphold for the disposal of secured collateral on the part of a used-car dealer, it is necessary to defer to the precedent established in the previously mentioned court case, and not the various sections of the UCC. The aforementioned standard supersedes the latter.

As is disclaimers should certainly be honored by the courts. In fact, they are completely ethical. These disclaimers effectively tell consumers that what they are consuming is delivered to them in the condition in which it currently stands at the time of the purchase. As such, consumers have a fair amount of warning regarding the condition of the product they are purchasing. Moreover, these as is disclaimers are certainly conspicuous, even if they are written down within in a lengthy contract. No reasonably acting person would commit to a purchase of several thousand dollars that contains a lengthy contract if they do not read it. Within that contract, the notification of an as is disclaimer is conspicuous in several ways. Firstly, the disclaimer itself appears in all capital letters, which helps it to stand out from the rest of the print which is in capital and lower case letters. Moreover, the print for the as is disclaimer in question for this particular case of Mitsch v. Rockenbach was also printed entirely in bold. Thus, it...

Therefore, these disclaimers are ethical and courts should honor them.
As is disclaimers are unethical and should not be honored by the courts. The principle reason that this preceding statement is true is because the notification of these disclaimers is not conspicuous enough. It little matters that they are written in bold letters or capitalized. If they are only mentioned in a lengthy contract which no consumer has time to read in detail while purchasing an automobile, he or she will not know that this disclaimer exists. Conspicuous notification includes containing this information on the actual vehicle that is sold. Not including it there is unethical and an attempt to hide this fact in the proverbial fine print.

A&M did act morally in signing the contract and then attempting to get out from some of its provisions, expressly those that kept the manufacturer from being responsible for the defective equipment. The notification regarding the warranty was not conspicuous enough. A&M is a farming operation and not a law firm. The manufacturer should have acted in good faith and revealed the details of its contract more saliently. A&M acted immorally by attempting to get out of the provisions of the contract it signed. In signing this contract it bound itself to a legal agreement. Its actions after signing the contract repudiated the contract for convenience, which is not legal nor morally defensible.

It was certainly not ethical for FMC to include waiver of liability and waiver of consequential damage in the contract for the purchase of its equipment. Those waivers would allow the company to deliver shoddy equipment that could harm the consumer, while freeing the former from any responsibility in essentially duping the consumer. Such contractual manipulation, therefore, is not ethical. FMC did act ethically in including those waivers. The company was merely protecting its own rights, and is not accountable for the various defects arising in its equipment from neglect and poor maintenance on the part of its customers.

Yes, the waiver clauses are unconscionable and unenforceable. It is unconscionable to include these contracts because it enables the manufacturer to deliver substandard equipment. No, these clauses are not unconscionable and unenforceable. They serve to protect the manufacturer from any neglect on the part of the consumer while utilizing the manufacturer's equipment. Therefore, these clauses are conscionable and enforceable.

The subject of fraudulent transfer certainly affects business in the United States.…