The latest laudable coverage at the rear of enforcing arbitration agreements ‘s the religion one they offer a cheaper, so much more outings [sic] a style of paying litigation and you may repairing packed legal dockets. But not, they have to not be utilized since the a barrier against legal actions of the one party if you are on top of that reserving only to help you alone new blade out-of a judge step.
<31>World Finance argues that this agreement does not meet the test of unconscionability because it is not one that “only someone out of his or her senses, or delusional, would enter into.” This colorful language, transplanted to the United States long ago from English courts, has occasionally been used to characterize an unconscionable contract as one “?such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.'” Hume v. United States, 132 U. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, 155, 28 Eng. Rep. 82, 100 (Ch. 1750)). While this dramatically expressive characterization concededly has made it into New Mexico case law, such as Guthmann, 103 N.2d 675 at 680, if literally applied it would be inconsistent with all the New Mexico cases that have struck down contracts for unconscionability, as well as most of those from other jurisdictions. Our law has never really required that a person seeking relief from an unconscionable contract must first establish that he or she actually had to have been a madman or a fool to sign it. It is sufficient if the provision is grossly unreasonable and against our public policy under the circumstances. The repetition of this unhelpful terminology from a bygone age only serves to confuse the unconscionability issues without serving any constructive purpose. We specifically disapprove of its use as a controlling standard of unconscionability analysis under New Mexico law.
<32>Applying the settled standards of New Mexico unconscionability law, we conclude that World Finance’s self-serving arbitration scheme it imposed on its borrowers is so unfairly and unreasonably one-sided that it is substantively unconscionable. In fact, the substantive unconscionability of these one-sided arbitration provisions is so compelling that we need not rely on any finding of procedural unconscionability, any more than have other courts invalidating similar schemes in the cases cited above. It is unnecessary to remand for further fact-finding to assess particular procedural unconscionability factors surrounding the formation of each of these particular contracts, such as the relative bargaining power, sophistication, or wealth of the lender and borrower in this particular case, or in any case of a small loan company’s pre-prepared agreement that is as one-sided on its face as the one before us. See Wis. Auto, 714 N.
<33>We do not find it necessary to make a formal determination that these were contracts of adhesion, which will not be enforced when the terms are patently unfair to the weaker party, although they certainly appear to have all the characteristics.
About three points need to be found in advance of an adhesion price are discovered. Basic, the new contract need certainly to take place in the form of a standard contract wishing otherwise followed of the one party into allowed of your own cash advance Alabama other. 2nd, the group proffering the newest standardized price need delight in an exceptional bargaining status since weaker cluster very nearly cannot avoid doing business lower than the deal terminology. Finally, the latest deal have to be accessible to the fresh weakened team towards the a take-it-or-leave-it foundation, instead window of opportunity for negotiating.