Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine

36 Pages Posted: 25 Sep 2015

Date Written: 2015

Abstract

This Article considers the unconscionability doctrine and confronts criticisms that the doctrine is fatally flawed as too vague, flexible, and ill-defined. It argues that unconscionability is a vital contract doctrine that entrusts common law judges with the latitude and discretion to safeguard essential contracting fairness and justice. Unconscionability serves as the line of demarcation between hard bargains and unfair bargains. This Article explores proposals to fortify and invigorate the unconscionability doctrine in order to promote contracting fairness in an era where one-sided, adhesionary contracts abound.

Keywords: Contracts, Unconscionability, Legal Ethics

Suggested Citation

Beh, Hazel Glenn, Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine (2015). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 4, May 2015. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2664778

Hazel Glenn Beh (Contact Author)

University of Hawaii ( email )

2515 Dole St.
William S. Richardson School of Law
Honolulu, HI 96822
United States
(808) 956-6553 (Phone)
(808) 956-5569 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
47
Abstract Views
240
PlumX Metrics