On advice of the appointed fact-finding committee the California Legislature did not adopt the "unconscionability" section of the official version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Many scholars as well as practitioner opposed its adoption, fearing that it would lead to unrestricted and unguided judicial interference in the commercial arena, and believing that it posed serious threats to the "freedom to contract." This position is supported by the obvious fact that "unconscionability" is not defined in the Code, and no specific criteria for evaluating the conscionability of contracts are provided. Yet, despite the controversy and prolonged debate all but two states–California and North Carolina–have adopted section 2-302. After the slow start 2-302 is emerging as an important aspect of commercial law. The increase in case activity as well as the diversity of potential uses arguably compels a reevaluation of California’s position of 2-302. Thus, the purpose of this note is to reexamine the efficacy of the arguments against the adoption of 2-302 in light of recent judicial interpretations in other jurisdictions and the growing importance of 2-302 in the contemporary commercial setting…Such unrest has also become a major legal problem…. In the light of these changes, it is evident that a rational theory of the legal relationship between the student and the university can develop within the context of the university as an instrument of society. In this concept, student-university relationships cease to be the private affairs the university has ling considered them. The university’s responsibility to its students is a responsibility to society…
A Reevaluation of the Decision Not to Adopt the Unconscionability Provision of the Uniform Commercial Code in California,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol7/iss2/6