Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine
|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.|
|Appears in Collections:||Beh, Hazel Glenn|
Please contact email@example.com if you need this content in an alternative format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.