Crafting a Remedy for the Naughtiness of Procedural Unconscionability

Cumberland Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 11, 2004

39 Pages Posted: 30 Jan 2004

Abstract

In this article I discuss the consequences of inducing someone to enter into an unconscionable contract and I suggest that there must be limitations on behavior associated with manipulative negotiation strategies. In addition, this article proposes that when inappropriate negotiation strategies result in an unconscionable term or agreement, there should be accountability if damages can be proven. Negotiation techniques and strategies are subject to scrutiny under the rubric of procedural unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability can be shown to have an impact on the sanctity of the contracting process. This article addresses the question of whether there is room in the law for a legal remedy for the consequences that may flow from procedural unconscionability. I propose a tort theory that I have named Consequential Procedural Unconscionability. The issues discussed are presented within the framework of a finding of unconscionability based on an unwarranted manipulation of cognitive biases or heuristics.

Keywords: Procedural Unconscionability, manipulative negotiation strategies, legal remedy, Behavioral Decision Theory

JEL Classification: D1, K12, K19

Suggested Citation

Marrow, Paul Bennett, Crafting a Remedy for the Naughtiness of Procedural Unconscionability. Cumberland Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 11, 2004, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=483889

Paul Bennett Marrow (Contact Author)

New York Law School ( email )

185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
255
Abstract Views
3,657
Rank
218,297
PlumX Metrics