Case Study #1 Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange Case
After reading chapter 1 and the Nino v. The jewelry Exchange Case, I have researched the answers for the questions asked at the end of the case study. 1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Court Appeals decide? a. The legal issue was discrimination towards his gender and nation origin. The Court Appeals decided to reserve Districts Courts order compelling the parties to arbitrate. 2. What does it mean for a contract to be “unconscionable”? “Procedurally unconscionable”? “Substantively unconscionable”? b. When a contract is unconscionable it means a more powerful party has drafted it, and the contents unreasonably favor the more powerful party. When a contract is procedurally unconscionable it means no opportunity to negotiate the contract terms, which is inequalities between the two parties. When a contract is substantively unconscionable the objective term of the contract is simplify unfair. 3. What was the evidence that this agreement was procedurally unconscionable? Substantively unconscionable? c. The evidence that this agreement was procedurally unconscionable, was he was given a copy to read, and sign with no opportunity to negotiate. It was presented to him as a take it or leave it kind of thing. There is also evidence that this agreement was substantively unconscionable, because he was only given 5 days to file a grievance. Five days was clearly unreasonable & one sided. 4. What does it mean to “sever” illegal terms from a contract? Why did the appeals court decline to do so here? d. To “sever” illegal terms from a contract means to take them out and make that part on the contract no longer valid. The appeals court declined to do so here because it was their opinion that the employee did not seek to use the arbitration as a legitimate means