Contracts of adhesion are commonly used in various forms of agreements, including real estate, insurance policies, and employment contracts. These agreements are usually presented in a take-it-or-leave-it format, with little or no room for negotiation.
In California, contracts of adhesion are generally considered enforceable. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may be challenged.
One way in which a contract of adhesion may be challenged is if it contains unconscionable terms. Unconscionability refers to terms that are unfairly one-sided or oppressive to one party. For example, a provision that cancels the contract without notice or a provision that requires one party to waive their right to sue in the event of a dispute may be considered unconscionable.
Another way in which a contract of adhesion may be challenged is if it violates public policy. For example, a contract that requires an employee to waive their right to workers’ compensation benefits would be unenforceable as it goes against public policy.
It is important to note that the burden of proof in challenging a contract of adhesion falls on the party seeking to invalidate the agreement. The challenging party must demonstrate that the contract is unconscionable or violates public policy.
In some cases, the courts may also look at the bargaining power of the parties involved. For example, if one party has significantly more power or resources than the other, the courts may be more likely to find the contract to be unconscionable.
In summary, contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable in California, but they may be challenged if they contain unconscionable terms or violate public policy. If you are entering into a contract of adhesion, it is important to read the terms carefully and understand your rights before signing.