« Arbitration and Class Action Waivers | Main | No Damage Suit Against Auto Makers For Causing Global Warming »

September 18, 2007


Andrew Sussman

I have no sympathy for Circuit City. The moral seems clear and should have been obvious at the beginning: If you're going to provide information to employees to get them to bargain away their rights, clearly inform them of what those rights are.

michael walsh

I'm not at all certain that the scope is as sweeping as you think. The major underpinning of that conclusion was that, even with the 30-day opt-out period, when the employer has made it so clear that they want and expect an arbitration agreement, the average reasonable employee would fear retaliation if he or she did not accept the terms. The same might hold true for medical arbitration agreements (fear that the doctor would not treat you), but it wouldn't necessarily apply to other sorts of transactions, including many consumer-vendor relationships.

Jon-Erik G. Storm

I agree with Michael--I do not think Gentry fundamentally alters contract law.

Even if it does make every adhesion contract procedurally unconscionable, it only need be the case that the contract is substantively not unconscionable. It's not a total escape hatch even at that extreme.

Employment relationship are a long-recognized example of a highly asymmetrical relationship. So, we'll see...


The page number of "Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed (9th Cir. 2002) 283 F3d 1183" was wrong...should be "283 F.3d 1198"

This is a good case in interpreting contracts of adhesion. Thanks for the example.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Blog powered by Typepad