TechSolutions Inc. presents a standard contract to its clients that includes a clause allowing the company to unilaterally change service fees at any time without prior notice. Additionally, the contract requires all disputes to be settled through arbitration in a foreign country. A client who recently signed the contract argues that these clauses should not be enforced. What is the most likely reason a court would refuse to enforce these clauses?
The clauses violate the statute of frauds requiring all contractual changes to be in writing.
The clauses are part of a standardized agreement, allowing them to be enforceable under certain conditions.
The clauses infringe upon the client's constitutional right to freely enter into contracts.
The clauses are unconscionable as they create an imbalance of power and are one-sided against the client.
The clauses are likely unconscionable because they impose one-sided terms that unfairly disadvantage the client, violating principles of fairness and public policy. Courts typically refuse to enforce such oppressive contract terms to protect consumers.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean for a clause in a contract to be unconscionable?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some examples of unconscionable clauses in contracts?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does arbitration work, especially in a foreign country?