Today’s Case-of-the-Week — Burnett v. Pagliacci Pizza (Washington Ct App 06/17/2019) [PDF] —caught my eye because of the somewhat non-traditional way the court handled the question of unconscionability.
Most courts find a contractual provision (arbitration clause or otherwise) unconscionable only if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
Procedural unconscionability has to do with how the contract was formed — adhesion contract, take-it-or-leave it approach, huge difference in bargaining power, etc.
Substantive unconscionability has to do with the actual terms in the contract — things that are vastly one-sided, harsh, or unlawful.
In this case the court — remarkably — held that procedural unconscionability alone will do the trick.