Marian P. Opala on Contract Enforcement
From Judgepedia
2007
Justice Opala concurred in the majority opinion of Justice James Winchester, which invalidated a clause in a contract between defendant, a cellular phone provider, and defendant, a customer who entered into a contract with defendant.
ISSUES:
In this case, the court considered whether an arbitration clause in contract for cell phone services was unconscionable because the plaintiff/customer was under duress when he entered into the agreement.
HOLDING:
The court found that an arbitration clause in a cellular phone services agreement was unconscionable, and invalid, because the plaintiff/customer had an absence of meaningful choice when he entered into the agreement for cell phone services.
REASONING:
In arriving at that decision, the court reasoned as follows:
- (1) The plaintiff/customer had an absence of meaningful choice because "[h]e needed to replace his cell phone, which had been stolen," and because "clearly [the plaintiff] did not know the implications of * * * the contract."
POTENTIAL FLAWS IN THE COURT'S REASONING:
For a discussion of potential flaws in the court's reasoning, see this link to the discussion page, or click the discussion tab at the top of this page.
