Unformatted text preview: participating with the AIRP will not give him a future with Circuit City, which meant a termination and does not allow a meaningful choice to Mantor. Mantor argues his forced signing of the arbitration and the required fee of $75 to bring about a complaint for arbitration is unfair to Mantor. Even though Circuit City has a policy to waive the fee, the one determining eligibality to waive is Circuit City and Mantor would have been able to get his disupute settled with the court for free. Circuit City argues that Mantor had a choice, because the AIRP was introduced in 1995, Mantor was visited by managers in 1998 with the full policy including the option to opt-out form that Mantor did not utilize. Circuit City argues that the $75 fee can be waived to qualified participants and is not an unfair terms presented in the arbitration contract. Conclusion No Circuit City may not enforce the contract with Mantor, because it is unconscionable with the procedural and substantive content....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.
- Spring '11
- Business Law