A Teaching Note on Unconscionable and Adhesive Contracts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.115.14685Keywords:
unconscionability, caveat emptor, adhesion, boiler plate contract; “as is” clauseAbstract
In this article, the authors, professors of legal studies, joined by a colleague from the discipline of marketing, write about the topic of unconscionability as it relates to the common law doctrines of “freedom of contract,” caveat emptor, and contracts of adhesion. Unconscionability can be a “threshold” discussion, or it can be considered at another point in a business law or legal environment of business course under the topic of “genuineness of assent.”
References
Ahern v. Knecht (1990). 563 N.E.2d 787. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
Alpha Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Silicon Graphics (2002). 646 N.W.2d 904. Minnesota Court of Appeals.
American Home Improvement Co. v. MacIver (1994). 201 A.2d 886. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Hillsborough.
Amoroso, H.J., Becker, P.A., & Weiss, E. (2021). A social contract: The doctrine of unconscionability and its relation to social progress. Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice, 28: 51-77.
Barnhizer, D.D. (2005). Inequality of bargaining power. University of Colorado Law Review, 76: 139-241.
Bender, S.W. (1998). Consumer protection for Latinos: Overcoming language fraud and English-only in the marketplace. American University Law Review, 45: 1027-1109.
Black’s Law Dictionary (1999). Seventh Edition. Thomson Reuters: Eagan, Minnesota.
Blackwell, S. (2022). The dangers of adhesive contracts. The Blackwell Firm (September 10, 2022), https://theblackwellfirm.com/the-dangers-of-adhesive-contracts/
Butcher v. Garrett-Enumclaw Co. (1978). 581 P.2d 1352. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Campbell Soup v. Wentz (1948). 172 F.2d 80. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Christensen v. Eggen (1998). 557 N.W.2d. Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Clear Counsel (@023). Fraudulent concealment. Clear Counsel, https://www.clearcounsel.com/fraudulentconcealment Colby, E. (2002). What did the doctrine of unconscionability do to the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company? Connecticut Law Review, 34: 625-660.
Cserne, P. (2021). Freedom of contract. In Encyclopedia of law and economics: 1-9. Springer Reference: New York New York.
County Asphalt, Inc. v. Lewis Welding & Eng’g Corp (1979). 444 F.2d 372. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Davis v. TWC Dealer Group, Inc. (2019). 41 Cal. App. 5th 662. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.
Chesterfield v. Jensen (1750). 28 ER 531. England and Wales, UK.
Del Hierro, D.F.D. (2021). The unconscionability doctrine versus the gross disparity doctrine. Willamette Law Review, 58: 113-162.
Darr, F.P. (1994). Unconscionability and price fairness. Houston Law Review, 30: 1819-1849. th
Davis v. TWC Dealer Group (2019). 41 Cal. App. 5 662. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.
Diener, K.W. (2016). The doctrine of unconscionability: A judicial business ethic. University of Puerto Rico Business Law Journal, 8: 103-128.
Dixon v. Chrisco (2018). 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
Dostert, P.E. (1969). Case studies in consumer fraud. The Business Lawyer (Proceedings: ABA National Institute: “Business in the Ghetto”): 25: 153-157.
Ellis v. McKinnon Broad (1993). 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80. California Court of Appeals.
Fineman, M.A. (2005). The foundations of law: The social foundations of law. Emory Law Journal, 54: 201-237.
Fleming, A. (2014). The rise and fall of unconscionability as the “law of the poor.” Georgetown Law Journal, 102: 1383-1441.
Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso (1966). 274 N.Y.S.2d 757. New York District Court.
Goshen Run Homeowners Ass’n v. Cisneros (2019). 206 A.3d 314. Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Hauenstein & Bermeister v. Met-Fab Industries, Inc. (1982). 320 N.W.2d 886. Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Hunter, R.J. (1992). Unconscionability revisited: A comparative approach. North Dakota Law Review, 68(1): 145-170.
Hunter, R.J. (1993). Unconscionability revisited in the Seventh Circuit. Res Gestae, 36(7): 314-317.
Hunter, R.J., Dalavalle, K., & Lozada, H.R. (2014). Should a legal analysis of the adequacy of warning labels consider issues relating to use of products by non-English speakers? Atlantic Law Journal, 16: 70-94.
Hunter, R.J., Shannon, J.H., & Amoroso, H.J. (2023). A teaching note on misrepresentation and fraud.
Jensen, C.A. (2020). Adhesion contracts and the unconscionability defense in Minnesota. The Jensen Litigation Firm, PLLC (Blog) (May 11, 2020), https://www.jensenlawmn.com/adhesion-contracts-unconscionable
Jha, A.R. (2020). Examining the concept of “unconscionability” as grounds for avoiding an agreement. LexForti Legal Network (April 23, 2020), https://lexforti.com/legal-news/examining-the-concept-of-unconscionability-asa-grounds-for-avoiding-an-agreement/
Jones v. Gilbert (2023). 2023-Ohio-754. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, Auglaize County.
Jones v. Star Credit (1969). 59 Misc. 2d 189. Superior Court, Nassau City, New York.
Kagan, J. 92023). Caveat emptor (buyer beware): What it is, and what it replaced. Investopedia (April 17, 2023), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/caveatemptor.asp
Karobkin, R. (2003). Bounded rationality, standard form contracts, and unconscionability. University of Chicago Law Review, 70: 1203-1295.
KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw (2015). 457 S.W.3d 70. Supreme Court of Texas.
Klass, R.A. (2017). Fraud: Elements of a cause of action for fraud. Courtstreetlaw.com, https://courtstreetlaw.com/author/raklass
Kugler v. Romain (1971). 279 S.2d 640. Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Lee, R.R. (2020). Beware: The doctrine of caveat emptor is alive and well in New York. New York Real Property Law Journal, 48(1): 4-9.
Morant, B.D. (1997). The relevance of race and disparity in discussions of contract law. New England Law Review, 31: 889-939.
Murphy v. McNamara (1979). 416 A.2d 170. Connecticut Superior Court.
Ollerman v. O’Rourke Co. (1980). 94 Wisc. 2d 17. Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Penningroth, D.C. (2022). Race in contract law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 170: 1199-1301.
Pogue v. Williamson (2020). 605 S.W.3d 656. Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston.
Pollock-Halverson v. McGuire (1998). 576 N.W.2d 451. Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Post v. Jones (1857). 60 U.S. 19. United States Supreme Court.
Prince, H.G. (1995). Unconscionability in California: A need for restraint and consistency. Hastings Law Journal, 46: 459-554.
Remco Enterprises, Inc. v. Houston (1984). 677 P.2d 567. Court of Appeals of Kansas. th
Sarun v. Dignity Health (2019). 41 Cal. App. 5 1119. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven.
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc. (1982).326 N.W.2d 920. Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Sho-Pro of Indiana, Inc. v. Brown (1992). 585 N.E.2d 157. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Slawson, W.D. (1971). Standard form contracts and democratic control of lawmaking power. Harvard Law Review, 84: 529-567.
Slawson, W.D. (2006). Contractual discretionary power: A law to prevent deceptive contracting by standard form.
Michigan State Law Review, 2006: 853-882.
Sovern, J., Greenberg, E.E., Kirgis, P.F., & Liu, Y. (2015). “Whimsy little contracts” with unexpected consequences: An empirical analysis of consumer understanding of arbitration agreements. Maryland Law Review, 75: 1-134.
State by Lefkowitz v. ITM, Inc. (1966). 275 N.Y.S.2d 303. Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County.
Swanson, C.B. (2001). Unconscionable quandary: UCC Article 2 and the unconscionability doctrine. New Mexico Law Review, 31: 359-399.
Toker v. Perl (1968). 260 A.2d 244. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Toker v. Westerman (1970). 274 A.2d 78. Superior Court of New Jersey, District Court, Union County.
United States v. Bedford Assocs. (1981). 713 F.2d 895. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp (1942). 315 U.S. 289. United States Supreme Court.
Warkentine, E.R. (2008). Beyond unconscionability: The case for using “knowing assent” as the basis for analyzing unbargained-for terms in standard for contracts. Seattle University Law Review, 31: 469-547.
White, A.M. & Mansfield, C.L. (2002). Literacy and contract. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 13: 233-266.
Wille v. Southwestern Bell (1976). 549 P.2d 903. Supreme Court of Kansas.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store (1964). 350 F.2d 445. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Richard J. Hunter, John H. Shannon, Henry J. Amoroso, Hector R. Lozada
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
