Contract Law · Contract Law

CA — Contract Law (AI set 1)

Canadian contract law — formation, terms, breach, and the duty of good faith.

4 cards · tap a card to flip it

All cards in this deck

Bhasin v Hrynew — what organizing principle did the SCC recognize?: In Bhasin v Hrynew [2014] 3 SCR 494, the SCC recognized good faith as an organizing principle of Canadian contract law, imposing a general duty of honest performance: parties must not lie or knowingly mislead each other in performing their contractual obligations.
Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — what test for unconscionability applies to arbitration clauses?: In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller [2020] 2 SCR 118, the SCC held that an arbitration clause is unconscionable—and unenforceable—where there is (1) inequality of bargaining power and (2) an improvident bargain, rendering the clause oppressive or unfair to the weaker party.
Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — why was the arbitration clause unconscionable?: In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020 SCC 16), the SCC held the arbitration clause unconscionable because there was a significant inequality of bargaining power and terms that were improvident: requiring a vulnerable gig worker to arbitrate in the Netherlands for USD $14,500 in fees effectively denied any access to dispute resolution. Unconscionability requires both inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain.
Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — what is the unconscionability doctrine's treatment of inequality of bargaining power?: In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller 2020 SCC 16, the SCC confirmed that unconscionability requires (1) inequality of bargaining power and (2) a resulting improvident bargain. The Court found the arbitration clause unconscionable because Uber's driver faced a profound power imbalance as a precarious gig worker, and the clause imposed costs and procedural barriers that effectively denied him any means of vindicating his rights. The clause was therefore void and unenforceable.

All cards in this deck

Bhasin v Hrynew — what organizing principle did the SCC recognize?

In Bhasin v Hrynew [2014] 3 SCR 494, the SCC recognized good faith as an organizing principle of Canadian contract law, imposing a general duty of honest performance: parties must not lie or knowingly mislead each other in performing their contractual obligations.

Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — what test for unconscionability applies to arbitration clauses?

In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller [2020] 2 SCR 118, the SCC held that an arbitration clause is unconscionable—and unenforceable—where there is (1) inequality of bargaining power and (2) an improvident bargain, rendering the clause oppressive or unfair to the weaker party.

Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — why was the arbitration clause unconscionable?

In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020 SCC 16), the SCC held the arbitration clause unconscionable because there was a significant inequality of bargaining power and terms that were improvident: requiring a vulnerable gig worker to arbitrate in the Netherlands for USD $14,500 in fees effectively denied any access to dispute resolution. Unconscionability requires both inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain.

Uber Technologies Inc v Heller — what is the unconscionability doctrine's treatment of inequality of bargaining power?

In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller 2020 SCC 16, the SCC confirmed that unconscionability requires (1) inequality of bargaining power and (2) a resulting improvident bargain. The Court found the arbitration clause unconscionable because Uber's driver faced a profound power imbalance as a precarious gig worker, and the clause imposed costs and procedural barriers that effectively denied him any means of vindicating his rights. The clause was therefore void and unenforceable.