|
P1206 A cell phone service agreement that was drafted by the service provider whose bargaining strength was far greater than that of individual customers and was presented to customers on a take-it-or-leave it basis was adhesive and therefore minimally unconscionable procedurally; a provision in it prohibiting class arbitration made it substantively unconscionable; the combination of procedural and substantive unconscionability made an arbitration requirement in the agreement unenforceable.CitationGATTON v T-MOBILE (Cell Phone Agreement)152 CA4 571 [See: Armendariz v Foundation 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; Discover Bank v Superior Court 36 C4 148, P/AT 7/05]
|
|
