Gil v. Mansano Gil v. Mansano

Gil v. Mansano

121 CAL.APP.4TH 739, 17 CAL.RPTR.3D 420, 2004.CA.0007155 , 2004 DAILY JOURNAL D.A.R. 10,012, 4 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 7415

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Descrição da editora

It is now blackletter law that a motion to compel arbitration must be denied if the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In this case, we focus on procedural unconscionability. We acknowledge that, in some situations, procedural unconscionability can be established simply by examining the written agreement and the nature of the relationship between the parties without the use of extrinsic evidence. That said, in spite of the moving partys best efforts, we conclude that he fails to prove that this particular arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable.

GÉNERO
Profissional e técnico
LANÇADO
2004
12 de agosto
IDIOMA
EN
Inglês
PÁGINAS
28
EDITORA
LawApp Publishers
TAMANHO
74,6
KB

Mais livros de In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five

[U] Rodriguez v. Kirchoefel [U] Rodriguez v. Kirchoefel
2005
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court of the State of California Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court of the State of California
2005
Essex Insurance Co. v. Five Star Dye House Essex Insurance Co. v. Five Star Dye House
2005
Flatley v. Mauro Flatley v. Mauro
2004
Yeung v. Soos Yeung v. Soos
2004
People v. Taibdeen People v. Taibdeen
2000