Pace v. Berry

How courts have described this case

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

• predicting that California Supreme Court would hold that unilateral modification provision substantively' unconscionable
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that he could not legally assent to the contract because he did not sufficiently understand English, and explaining that a “party who agrees to terms in writing without understanding or investigating those terms does so at his own peril”
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that he could not legally assent to the contract because he did not sufficiently understand English, and explaining that a “party who agrees to terms in writing without understanding or investigating those terms does so at his own peril”
• before reaching the enforceability of the arbitration provision, discussing whether the delegation clause was clear and unmistakable or unconscionable
• “[T]he question of whether delegation language is clear and unmistakable should be determined in context of the contractual lan guage as a whole—not by artificially restricting the Court’s review solely to the provisions of the arbitration clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).