SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court may be preparing to overhaul the way it evaluates arbitration agreements for enforceability in a case over a contract that two lower courts found impermissibly harsh and one-sided.
Over the past three decades, California’s high court has embraced a variety of terms to describe arbitration agreements it deemed unconscionable: they were “unreasonably favorable” to one party, “unfairly one-sided,” “overly harsh,” “unduly oppressive” or “so one-sided as to shock the conscience.”
