Top Law Schools

"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

Breezin wrote:"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

It's called Contracts. Good luck!

First week sucks. Your asshole suddenly looks incredibly similar to your elbow, but eventually it'll clear itself up.

Sorry man, I don't understand that either... I'm so happy I don't have contracts until next semester.

Breezin wrote:"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

I have no idea what that means. Guess what? Did just fine 1L.

bjsesq wrote:

Breezin wrote:"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

I have no idea what that means. Guess what? Did just fine 1L.

The author is questioning whether, by limiting the scope of "unfair surprise" and "oppression," we could satisfy people who think those concepts give courts too much power over contracts between private parties.

Breezin wrote:"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

In other words, "Is there a definition out there that doesn't make the terms "unfair surprise" and "oppression" sound like ambiguous bs designed to trigger what are mostly meritless, bs claims?"

The answer is..."No!" Judges know it when they see it; that's the standard.

IAFG wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

Breezin wrote:"Is it possible to define the meaning of "unfair surprise" and "oppression" more precisely so as to rebut those scholars who argue that unconscionability is an ambiguous and ill-defined invitation to judicial intervention in private contracts?"

WTF is this trash

I have no idea what that means. Guess what? Did just fine 1L.

The author is questioning whether, by limiting the scope of "unfair surprise" and "oppression," we could satisfy people who think those concepts give courts too much power over contracts between private parties.

Yeah, I got nothing.

just watch the lincoln lawyer and imitate.

dood wrote:just watch the lincoln lawyer and imitate.

LOLnothanks.

dood wrote:just watch the lincoln lawyer and imitate.

I laughed