Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
2.
completed
Form
FTP
Dispute
Resolution
3.
4.
5.
Substantive Unconscionability
15
A
contract
or
provision
is
substantively
unconscionable where it unreasonably favors the party
asserting it. Salley, 925 A.2d at 119. Put another way,
[s]ubstantive unconscionability refers to contractual terms
that are unreasonably or grossly favorable to one side and to
which the disfavored party does not assent. Harris v. Green
Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing
Germantown Mfg. Co. v. Rawlinson, 491 A.2d 138, 145-47
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Denlinger, Inc. v. Dendler, 608 A.2d
1061, 1068 (1992)). An arbitration agreement cannot be
construed as substantively unconscionable where it does not
alter or limit the rights and remedies available to [a] party in
the arbitral forum . . . . Edwards v. HOVENSA, LLC, 497
F.3d 355, 364 (3d Cir. 2007) (construing Gilmer v.
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)).
In denying Tenets motion to compel arbitration, the
District Court found three bases on which the arbitration
agreement might be substantively unconscionable: (1) a
potential prohibition against recovery of attorneys fees and
costs, (2) potential inclusion of a class action waiver, and (3)
the possibility that Tenet could run out the clock on the
statute of limitations. We disagree with the District Courts
conclusions, and find no basis for substantive
unconscionability.
a.
Attorneys Fees
17
21
23
Procedural Unconscionability
31