Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1145, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269, 311 P.3d 184 (2013) (quotations and citations omitted). As the party opposing arbitration, Gillette “bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223, 236, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 514, 282 P.3d 1217 (2012). Unconscionability requires a showing of both procedural and substantive unconscionability, “balanced on a sliding scale.” Tompkins, 2014 WL 2903752, at *13 (citation omitted); see also Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443, 469, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556 (2007) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on different grounds by Iskanian v. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that california supreme court is currently considering the appropriate standard for determining whether a contract or contract term is substantively unconscionable (B) holding that the more substantively oppressive the contract term the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable and vice versa (C) holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance (D) holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality (E) holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated
Output (English): recognizing that california supreme court is currently considering the appropriate standard for determining whether a contract or contract term is substantively unconscionable