Philpot v. Tennessee Health Management, 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 “substantive unconscionability [] refers to contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” (citing Elliott v. Elliott, No. 87-276- II, 1988 WL 34094, at (Tenn. Ct. App. April 13, 1988) (emphasis added))
• noting that one factor against a determination of unconscionability was that the only urgency in signing the contract was the plaintiffs desire to conclude the business during his lunch break
• considering the fact that the plaintiff knew of other purveyors who could perform the desired service in declining to invalidate the arbitration agreement
• finding arbitration provision was not unconscionable based in part on the distinctive formatting of the acknowledgement and signature block
• “A party is presumed to know the contents of a contract he has signed.” (citations omitted)
• “The parties have a duty to learn the contents and stipulations of a contract before signing it; signing a contract without learning such information is at the party’s own peril.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).