Cameron v. Crouse

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that there 27 can be no unconscionability defense if there was no mutual assent because a finding of 28 unconscionability “presupposes an existing contract”
• affirming lower court's dismissal of the defendant's individual negligence claim because the bank \did not owe a duty of care to [the plaintiff] individually as he was not a customer of the Bank\
• “one who signs an instrument which on 9 its face is a contract is deemed to assent to all its terms.”
• “[0]rdinarily one who signs an instrument which on its face is a contract is deemed to assent to all its terms.”
• “[O]rdinarily one who signs an instrument which on its face is a contract 23 is deemed to assent to all its terms.”
• “The doctrine of un-conscionability is a defense to the enforcement of a contract or a term thereof.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).