Graham v

Graham v - provision put Graham at a disadvantage. ISSUE:...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1990) P. 377 FACTS: P (Graham) produced concerts and entered in to a contract w/ D to conduct a multi-city tour of artist Leon Russell. In the standard contract was an arbitration clause. A dispute ensued over profits of the concerts and Scissor-Tail moved to compel arbitration when Graham filed suit for breach of contract. Graham appealed claiming that the contracts were unenforceable b/c they were contracts of adhesion and that the arbitration provision was unconscionable. Ct of App ruled that the requirement of the American Federation of Musicians to use the standard contract form which contained the arbitration
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: provision put Graham at a disadvantage. ISSUE: Whether the adhesion contract falls w/in the reasonable expectations of the weaker “adhering” party and if so if considered in its context is it unduly oppressive or unconscionable. HELD: Yes, the arbitration clause was w/in reasonable expectations of Graham, and No, the presence of a bias arbitrator made the contract unconscionable. RULE: An adhesion contract must fall w/in the reasonable expectations of the weaker “adhering” party and not be unduly oppressive or unconscionable in context to be enforceable....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Arizona.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online