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 unconscionabilitydoctrine in order to promote contracting fairness in an era where one sided, adhesionary contracts abound.
Hazel Glenn Beh,
Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine,
66 Hastings L.J. 1011
Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol66/iss4/8