To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




A Contract of Adhesion

Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 612 S.W.2d 413, 418, n.3 (Mo.App.1981). Such form contracts are a natural concomitant of our mass production-mass consumer society. Id. Therefore, a rule automatically invalidating adhesion contracts would be completely unworkable. Corbin, supra Section: 559A at 660. Accordingly, courts do not view adhesion contracts as inherently sinister and automatically unenforceable. Rather, as with all contracts, the courts seek to enforce the reasonable expectations of the parties garnered not only from the words of a standardized form imposed by its proponent, but from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Robin, supra, 637 S.W.2d at 697; Estrin, supra, 612 S.W.2d at 413; Spychalski v. MFA Life Ins. Co., 620 S.W.2d 388, 392-93 (Mo.App. 1981). Only such provisions of the standardized form which fail to comport with such reasonable expectations and which are unexpected and unconscionably unfair are held to be unenforceable. Corbin, supra, Section:559A at 660. Because standardized contracts address the mass of users, the test for “reasonable expectations” is objective, addressed to the average member of the public who accepts such a contract, not the subjective expectations of an individual adherent. Estrin, supra, 612 S.W.2d at 419-20.
We look then to all the evidence surrounding this transaction to determine the objectively reasonable expectations of the parties and to the question of unconscionable unfairness imposed upon respondents under the terms of the form contract.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following