Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trial court’s determination that a contract is unconscionable is “reviewable by the de novo standard”
• stating contract was substantively unconscionable in part because plaintiff was required to waive “important statutory remedies” such as declaratory or injunctive relief under FDUTPA
• stating, “One indicator of substantive unconscionability is that the agreement requires the customers to give up other legal remedies.”
• declining to enforce and apply a retroactive arbitration provision to ongoing litigation in part because “the arbitration clause [was] an adhesion contract”
• finding unconscionable a new arbitration clause inserted into existing customers’ monthly bill
• arbitration clause proeedurally unconscionable because parties had no meaningful choice in accepting or rejecting the contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).