Giving Unconscionability More Muscle: Attorney’s Fees As a Remedy for Contractual Overreaching

58 Pages Posted: 17 Mar 2010 Last revised: 28 Apr 2010

See all articles by Stephen E. Friedman

Stephen E. Friedman

Widener University Delaware Law School

Date Written: March 16, 2010

Abstract

This Article seeks to broaden the conversation about unconscionability. While most of the discussion has focused on the appropriate standard for determining unconscionability, this Article focuses on the appropriate remedy to be imposed when unconscionability is found. The current remedy for unconscionability is non-enforcement or limited enforcement of unconscionable contracts or contract terms. This remedy is inadequate and seriously undermines unconscionability’s effectiveness as a tool for policing against contractual overreaching. The Article proposes that courts be given discretion to award attorney’s fees to consumers who successfully establish the unconscionability of a standard form contract. Such a remedy would enable unconscionability to meet the challenges posed by standard form contracts and would be fully consistent with unconscionability’s nature and history.

Keywords: unconscionability, contracts, standard form contracts, attorney's fees

JEL Classification: K12

Suggested Citation

Friedman, Stephen E., Giving Unconscionability More Muscle: Attorney’s Fees As a Remedy for Contractual Overreaching (March 16, 2010). Georgia Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010, Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-15, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1572901

Stephen E. Friedman (Contact Author)

Widener University Delaware Law School ( email )

4601 Concord Pike
Wilmington, DE 19803-0406
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
152
Abstract Views
1,382
Rank
351,918
PlumX Metrics