Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “even though a contract may be adhe- sive, the existence of ‘meaningful’ alternatives available to such contracting party in the form of other sources of supply tends to defeat any claim of unconscionability”
• finding no procedural unconseionability because there were other financial institutions that offered competing IRA’s which lacked the challenged provision
• finding “claim of oppression may be defeated if the complaining party had reasonably available alternative sources of supply from which to obtain the desired goods ... free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable”
• distinguishing the ability to bring an affirmative cause of action for unconsciona-bility under the CLRA from the mere codification of the defense of unconsciona-bility in Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.5, and applying the case law of unconscionability to the CLRA’s affirmative cause of action
• “While we recognize significant overlap between the two concepts [adhesion and oppression], we are not prepared to hold that they are identical.”
• while issuing writ of mandate to decertify class, explaining that trial court could once again consider certification of class after appropriate amendment of complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).