|
P0839 A prohibition against class-wide arbitration in a wireless phone service contract was adhesive, making it procedurally unconscionable, but it was not substantively unconscionable and was enforceable, because it permits the customer to sue in small claims court, and because the provider agrees to pay arbitration costs and attorney fees of a customer who arbitrates and wins.CitationPARRISH v CINGULAR WIRELESS (Wireless Phone Arbitration) 129 CA4 601 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; CivC 1750 etseq; Armendariz v Foundation Health 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; Discover Bank v Superior Court 36 C4 148, P/AT 7/05]
|
|
