Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBeh, Hazel G.
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-22T20:08:51Z
dc.date.available2015-06-22T20:08:51Z
dc.date.issued2015-05
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.format.extent35
dc.identifier.citation66 Hastings L. J. 1011
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10125/36062
dc.language.isoen-US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesHastings Law Journal
dc.titleCuring the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine
dc.typeArticle
dc.type.dcmiText

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Beh_66HastingsLJ1011.pdf
Size:
233.78 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.62 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Beh, Hazel Glenn (Faculty Emerita)