Sales and Leases | 88
P.3d 741 (Cal. 2015) with Capitol Discount Corp. v. Rivera , No. CV–6114–12/KI, 2013 WL 692940 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2013).]
Example : A municipal worker inquired about purchasing some chairs from a furniture store. A salesperson indicated that the store would do a credit check and, if approved, notify the worker. The worker signed a form titled “Retail Installment and Security Agreement.” The worker never read the form, on which price and payment terms were not filled in. The form was hard to understand and partly unreadable. Later, the furniture was delivered, though the worker never knowingly agreed to buy it, with a note stating a price of $4,500. The store refused to take the furniture back when the worker complained of the price, of which she was never informed until now. Here, there is likely procedural unconscionability. The store had greater bargaining power, the form was byzantine and partly illegible, the worker could not easily obtain credit elsewhere, and the store utilized heavy-handed tactics to foist the furniture upon her. [ See Capitol Discount Corp. v. Rivera , No. CV–6114–12/KI, 2013 WL 692940 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2013).] Role of Contracts of Adhesion in Finding Procedural Unconscionability and Determining Whether to Afford a Remedy The mere fact that the contract is one of adhesion is enough, by itself, for some courts to find procedural unconscionability. This fact alone, however, does not mean that the court will apply any remedy, such as invalidating the contract or an unconscionable provision. Rather, it means that the court will scrutinize the contract or the challenged provisions closely, to determine whether there is enough substantive unconscionability, in addition to the procedural unconscionability, to warrant a remedy. [ Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC , 353 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2015).] Example : A consumer contracted to buy a car from an auto dealer. The dealer’s standard, adhesion contract required that all disputes be submitted to binding arbitration. In addition, the contract permitted an arbitration award to be appealed to a panel of arbitrators, but only if the award (1) were either $0 or greater than $100,000 or (2) awarded injunctive relief. The contract also required the appealing party to front the costs of appeal and waive any right to class-action litigation. On similar facts, a court found that there was some procedural unconscionability, just because the contract was one of adhesion. Even so, the court went on to find that no remedy was appropriate, because the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. [ See Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC , 353 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2015); Substantive Unconscionability, infra .]
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker