Opinion ID: 2259102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: contract of adhesion

Text: [¶ 14] Finally, Schroeder argues that he has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding his defense that the employment agreement was a contract of adhesion. We disagree. [¶ 15] In his affidavit in response to Rynel's motion to dismiss, Schroeder alleged that (1) Rynel drafted the employment agreement, (2) he negotiated the employment agreement without attorney representation, and (3) Rynel presented the employment agreement to him with little or no opportunity to dicker about its terms. A contract of adhesion requires some element of overreaching by a party who exploits a vastly unequal bargaining position. See Dairy Farm Leasing Co., Inc. v. Hartley, 395 A.2d 1135, 1139 n. 3 (Me.1978) (discussing principles of a contract of adhesion). Schroeder's assertions fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the defense that the employment agreement was a contract of adhesion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.