Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine

File SizeFormat 
Beh_66HastingsLJ1011.pdf233.78 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Item Summary

Title: Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine
Authors: Beh, Hazel G.
Issue Date: May 2015
Citation: 66 Hastings L. J. 1011
Series/Report no.: Hastings Law Journal
Abstract: This Article considers the unconscionability doctrine and confronts criticisms that the doctrine is fatally flawed as too vague, flexible, and ill-defined. It argues that unconscionability is a vital contract doctrine that entrusts common law judges with the latitude and discretion to safeguard essential contracting fairness and justice. Unconscionability serves as the line of demarcation between hard bargains and unfair bargains. This Article explores proposals to fortify and invigorate the unconscionability doctrine in order to promote contracting fairness in an era where one-sided, adhesionary contracts abound.
Pages/Duration: 35
Appears in Collections:Beh, Hazel Glenn

Please contact if you need this content in an alternative format.

Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.