|
P1038 An arbitration agreement contained in a 24 page, single-spaced document with 72 numbered paragraphs and several attached exhibits that was presented to unsophisticated children who were told only to read it carefully and sign it was adhesive, because it was a standardized contract, drafted by parties with superior bargaining position, and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis by; this, coupled with the fact that the arbitration clause appeared in one paragraph near the end of the document with no effort to highlight its presence, made it procedurally unconscionable; it was substantively unconscionable because it required the children to arbitrate all disputes, while the other parties were free to pursue judicial remedies, because it barred only the children from seeking review of the arbitrator's decision, and because rules of the American Arbitration Association, which was the specified arbitrator, would require the children to bear half the costs of arbitration; the combination of procedural and substantive unconscionability made the agreement unenforceable.CitationHIGGINS v SUPERIOR COURT (Extreme Makeover) 140 CA4 1238 [See: 9 USC 1 etseq; CCP 1281; Armendariz v Foundation 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; Buckeye v Cardegna 126 SCt 1204]
|
|
