Opinion ID: 1780860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the arbitration clause substantively unconscionable?

Text: ¶ 62. The Gatlins claim that the arbitration clause by its express terms closes the courthouse doors to individual growers and imposes excessive costs that prohibit growers from obtaining relief through arbitration, effectively leaving the growers with no recourse for the company's violations of their legal rights. [12] They argue that this effective exclusion from both arbitration and judicial determination is substantively unconscionable. They also claim that the arbitration clause's mutual exclusion of punitive damages is unconscionable. ¶ 63. While procedural unconscionability goes to the formation of the contract, substantive unconscionability goes to its actual terms. Plaintiff may prove substantive unconscionability if she proves the terms of the arbitration clause were oppressive. Smith v. EquiFirst Corp., 117 F.Supp.2d 557, 560 (S.D.Miss.2000). An arbitration agreement typically will not be held unconscionable because of excessively high fees without a likelihood or substantial evidence that excessively high fees are being charged. See, e.g., First Family Fin. Servs. v. Fairley, 173 F.Supp.2d 565, 571 (S.D.Miss.2001). Cf. Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Bruno, 784 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.2000).