Opinion ID: 1039181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: California's Unconscionability Standard

Text: Under California law, courts may choose not to enforce any contract found 'to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,' or may 'limit 2 The validity of the arbitration agreement in Concepcion turned on the FAA's savings clause. 9 U.S.C. § 2 states: A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Emphasis added.) 8 Brown v. MHN Government Services, et al., No. 87953-2 the application of any unconscionable clause.' I d. at 1746 (quoting CAL. CN. CODE ANN. § 1670.5(a)). Unconscionability requires both a procedural and substantive element, but 'they need not be present in the same degree' and are evaluated on 'a sliding scale.' Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass 'n v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev., LLC, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 282 P.3d 1217, 1232, 145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 514 (2012) (quoting Armendariz, 24 Cal. 4th at 114). The procedural element concerns the manner in which the contract was negotiated, focusing on oppression or surprise. Procedural oppression generally concerns an inequality of bargaining power and an absence of real negotiation or meaningful choice. Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1319, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2005). Procedural surprise generally relates to whether the challenged term is hidden in a standardized form or beyond the reasonable expectations of the weaker party. Id. at 1321. Substantive unconscionability concerns overly harsh or one-sided results. Armendariz, 24 Cal. 4th at 114.