Opinion ID: 1856868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Unconscionability-Lack of Voluntariness

Text: ¶ 25. A contract of adhesion is an agreement drafted unilaterally by the dominant party and then presented on a `take-it-or-leave-it' basis to the weaker party who has no real opportunity to bargain about its terms. Taylor, 826 So.2d at 716 (citations omitted). Such contracts are usually pre-printed and contain provisions in extremely small print. Id. A lack of voluntariness is demonstrated in contracts of adhesion when there is a great imbalance in the parties' relative bargaining power, the stronger party's terms are unnegotiable, and the weaker party is prevented by market factors, timing or other pressures from being able to contract with another party on more favorable terms or to refrain from contracting at all. Id. at 716 (citations omitted). ¶ 26. This agreement was prepared for Dr. Cleveland and CSA by the Phelps Dunbar, LLP, law firm. The agreement appears on a printed form but does not contain any small print. However, the parties dispute whether the agreement was presented on a take it or leave it basis. Plaintiffs assert Mann was in a great deal of pain during the June 18 visit to Dr. Cleveland's office. Templeton also stated in her affidavit that during the visit, Mann was in pain and under stress because of the hernia. On the other hand, Dr. Cleveland stated Mann was not under a heavy burden of pain or stress at the time of signing. ¶ 27. The claim of a lack of voluntariness fails for several reasons. First, Mann initialed on the second page of the agreement next to the term stating, [p]atient is not in need of emergency care or under immediate stress. Second, the agreement provides for rescission within fifteen days of signing the agreement, and Mann had nineteen days before his surgery. Additionally, the agreement states, [b]efore signing the Agreement the Patient may make written changes in the Arbitration Agreement if they so desire and present these to the Clinic for approval. While the trial court held it did not seem reasonable or practical for Mann to have secured legal advice in light of his pressing medical condition, Mann's surgery was not scheduled until nineteen days after he executed the agreement, so Mann did not have to choose between forever waiving available remedies in a judicial forum, or forgoing necessary medical treatment. . . . Vicksburg Partners, 911 So.2d at 525. For all of these reasons, we conclude the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.