Repository logo
 

Being Conscious of Unconscionability in Modern Times: Heller v Uber Technologies

Accepted version
Peer-reviewed

No Thumbnail Available

Type

Article

Change log

Abstract

jats:titleAbstract</jats:title>jats:pRequiring low‐paid drivers to sign an Arbitration Clause removing their right to local court processes can be unconscionable and, if so, the clause is not enforceable. This was the conclusion reached by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada when considering a contractual provision that mandated all external dispute resolution processes go through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands and required upfront fees of $14,500USD to do so. In this case note, it is argued that the Canadian decision opens the door for the United Kingdom to rethink the role of unconscionability and how the doctrine could apply to modern contractual arrangements. jats:italicHeller</jats:italic> v jats:italicUber Technologies</jats:italic> provides the opportunity to develop the elements of unconscionability in a way that tackles inequality of bargaining power in standard form contracts, particularly when they fall outside the protection of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.</jats:p>

Description

Keywords

4804 Law In Context, 48 Law and Legal Studies, 10 Reduced Inequalities

Journal Title

Modern Law Review

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

0026-7961
1468-2230

Volume Title

84

Publisher

Wiley

Rights

All rights reserved