Mary Jane Groff


As a means of countering the pro-arbitration stance taken by the Supreme Court, a number of lower courts have chosen to police the fairness of arbitration clauses in contracts by using the doctrine of unconscionability. The Supreme Court has authorized the use of generally applicable contract law principles including unconscionability-to invalidate arbitration agreements. Unconscionability provides courts with a flexible tool for coming to the rescue of parties who, if the court is sufficiently shocked, find themselves entangled in unfair arbitration clauses. This Note addresses the Fifth Circuit's use of unconscionability in respect to a particularly one-sided arbitration clause, and examines the court's failure to utilize unconscionability regarding other aspects of the contracts' arbitration clauses.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.