Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that procedural unconscionability “may be established by showing the contract is one of adhesion”
• finding that the plaintiff’s considerable business experience did not 26 support a finding of procedural unconscionability
• finding that 25 defendant “not impos[ing] deadlines during the negotiations for the purpose of pressuring 26 [plaintiff] into making a quick, ill-considered decision” supported a finding of no procedural 27 unconscionability
• relying on factfinding that “no harm was anticipated” and holding that “there was no reasonable relationship” between the liquidated damages and the anticipated harm
• noting “there is no categorical rule holding cotenancy provisions are unreasonable per se and therefore unenforceable penalties. Instead, the validity of a cotenancy provision depends upon the facts and circumstances proven in a particular case.”
• “The party challenging the validity of a contract or a contractual provision bears the burden of proving unconscionability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).