Opinion ID: 619286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unconscionable Warranty Claims

Text: Smith argues that Ford’s standard three-year, 36,000 mile warranty was unconscionable because it was non-negotiable and contained durational limitations that Ford enforced with respect to the known latent defect in the ignition locks. Under California law, unconscionability includes both a procedural and substantive element. Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 555, 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). While California courts have rejected the notion that “the availability in the marketplace of substitute employment, goods, or services alone can defeat a claim of procedural unconscionability,” Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc, 469 F.3d 1257, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006), the existence of meaningful substitutes can. See, e.g., Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court, 259 Cal. Rptr. 789, 796-97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (noting that “even though a contract may be adhesive, the existence of ‘meaningful’ alternatives available to such contracting party in the form of other source of supply tends to defeat any claim of unconscionability”). Smith was presented with a meaningful choice, not just the option of purchasing a different vehicle from a different manufacturer, but also the option of purchasing a different warranty with an extended durational limit from Ford. We agree with the district court that Smith failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding in his -5- favor regarding procedural unconscionability. Further, because Ford was under no duty to disclose the failure rate of the ignition locks, and Smith has offered no evidence that Ford’s warranty created “overly harsh or one-sided results as to shock the conscience,” Aron, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 564 (internal citations omitted), we affirm the district court’s finding regarding the unconscionability of Ford’s warranty.