{"title":"The Philosophical Dimensions of the Doctrine of Unconscionability","authors":"P. Bridwell","doi":"10.2307/1600579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of unconscionability permits courts to invalidate contracts that they deem to be fundamentally unfair. Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),' which embodies this doctrine, is one of the Code's most controversial provisions.2 By 1967, only 16 years after the first official version of the Code appeared, over 130 articles had been published on the doctrine of unconscionability.3 Many of the articles published in the 1960s were aimed at providing guidance to courts applying the unconscionability doctrine. However, in 1970, Robert Braucher, author of the UCC's provisions concerning unconscionability, remarked that \"we are probably not much more ready now than we were twenty years ago to arrive at comprehensive reasoned elaboration of what is unconscionable .... We may not have added much to the old saw,'A fair exchange is no robbery.\"'5 Braucher's remark raises two important questions. First, why after nineteen years and well over one hundred law review articles did legal scholars feel that they were unable to provide courts with a \"rea-","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"1513-1531"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1600579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Abstract
The doctrine of unconscionability permits courts to invalidate contracts that they deem to be fundamentally unfair. Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),' which embodies this doctrine, is one of the Code's most controversial provisions.2 By 1967, only 16 years after the first official version of the Code appeared, over 130 articles had been published on the doctrine of unconscionability.3 Many of the articles published in the 1960s were aimed at providing guidance to courts applying the unconscionability doctrine. However, in 1970, Robert Braucher, author of the UCC's provisions concerning unconscionability, remarked that "we are probably not much more ready now than we were twenty years ago to arrive at comprehensive reasoned elaboration of what is unconscionable .... We may not have added much to the old saw,'A fair exchange is no robbery."'5 Braucher's remark raises two important questions. First, why after nineteen years and well over one hundred law review articles did legal scholars feel that they were unable to provide courts with a "rea-
期刊介绍：
The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
