Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, Melissa T. Lonegrass
Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, Melissa T. Lonegrass
Journal Articles
This Article evaluates the sliding scale approach to unconscionability, defends its use, and advocates for its continued and expanded application to consumer standard form contracts. Part I describes the sliding scale approach and its recent popularity in state courts, thereby filling a gap in the scholarly doctrine, which has to date failed to fully examine this trend. Parts II and III defend the sliding scale approach, praising its potential to align the unconscionability analysis with interdisciplinary research regarding consumer behavior and to balance formalist concerns about judicial regulation of unfair terms in standard form contracts. Finally, Part IV calls for …
Adversarial No More: How Sua Sponte Assertion Of Affirmative Defenses To Habeas Wreaks Havoc On The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Katherine Macfarlane
Adversarial No More: How Sua Sponte Assertion Of Affirmative Defenses To Habeas Wreaks Havoc On The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Katherine Macfarlane
Journal Articles
In every federal civil case, a defendant must raise its affirmative defenses in the pleading that responds to a plaintiff's complaint. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), failure to properly plead, for example, a statute of limitations defense, waives the defense for good. Rule 8(c) does not exempt any category of affirmative defense, nor does it forgive unintentional omissions of certain defenses. It also does not prefer governmental defendants to others. Yet in habeas corpus cases, the most significant affirmative defenses to habeas petitions need not comply with Rule 8(c). Instead, federal courts may raise the affirmative defenses …