In Singh v.Uber Technologies Inc. ,the case in the text,the court concluded that:
A)because there was a large disparity in bargaining power between the parties,the agreement was unconscionable.
B)Uber took advantage of its drivers when it failed to pay overtime compensation and made the drivers pay for significant business expenses that were incurred for Uber's benefit.
C)because Uber did not provide users with an opportunity to read the full terms of the agreement prior to acceptance,the agreement was unconscionable.
D)Singh may be able to demonstrate a disparity in bargaining power but he failed to show that the agreement was substantively unconscionable.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court explained that a disparity in bargaining power alone would not render an agreement unconscionable.The party challenging the agreement must also establish that it is substantively unconscionable."This element refers to the terms that unreasonably favor one party to which the disfavored party does not truly assent."

In Singh V