Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a void provision can be severed where it does not affect the intent of the parties
• finding that the plaintiff had adequate notice of the arbitration clause, which was on page 38 of the 40-page booklet, based in part on the notice provided to review the Terms and Conditions of the agreement
• indicating there are two distinct frameworks for determining whether an arbitration clause is unenforceable: “(1) whether the arbitration clause is void as a matter of law because it defeats the remedial purpose of the applicable statute, or (2
• “To decline to enforce a contract as unconscionable, the contract must be both procedurally unconscionable and substantively unconscionable.”
• “As a general rule, contractual provisions are severable, where the illegal portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and, with the illegal portion eliminated, there remain valid legal obligations.”
• “If Fonte was unsatisfied with the terms, she did not have to sign the contract. Likewise, Fonte had a period of time to cancel the contract after its execution if, upon further review, she was not satisfied with the Terms and Conditions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).