Ryan M. Turley


In Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos., Inc.,2 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither economic disadvantage nor undisclosed arbitration fees may form the basis for striking down an arbitration provision on the grounds of unconscionability.3 While the Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) expressly authorize the use of the doctrine of unconscionability to invalidate arbitration provisions, courts are sharply divided on its proper application. 4 The difficult juxtaposition of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the FAA as a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration" and the traditional application of unconscionability as a means of policing unfair contracts has produced a significant amount of disagreement and confusion among the states.5 This Note addresses the Fifth Circuit's application of the doctrine of unconscionability under Georgia law and argues that the court not only misapplied Georgia law but rendered a holding that both disregards the foundational public policy behind the doctrine of unconscionability and does violence to the fundamental right to due process of law.



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.