Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATA/499/2005 • CJ GE ATA/499/2005 Généré par l'IA

Arbitration Clause Enforceability Based on Unconscionability Claim

Numéro de cause ATA/499/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

A party challenged the enforcement of a contractual provision requiring arbitration for disputes, asserting that the provision was unconscionable due to unequal bargaining power and one-sided terms heavily favoring the other party, specifically concerning fee-shifting and limitation of remedies. The court determined that while the contract presented a situation of disparity and some one-sided provisions existed, the agreement as a whole was not so oppressive or one-sided as to render the entire arbitration clause unenforceable; therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was valid and the dispute must proceed to arbitration as stipulated in the agreement.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 106 al. 1 LTF, Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Arbitration Clause Enforceability Based on Unconscionability Claim: The court determined that while the contract presented a situation of disparity and some one-sided provisions existed, the agreement as a whole was not so oppressive or one-sided as to render the entire arbitration clause unenforceable; therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was valid and the dispute must proceed to arbitration as stipulated in the agreement.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
clause compromissoire partie au contrat exécution arbitrabilité créance contestée clause d'effectivité

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 106 al. 1 LTF

The appeal is rejected because the relevant grounds for appeal were not substantiated according to the requirements of this article.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the federal procedure as the appeal was rejected.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

        

      



    









 !"##########$$%& %$##########'##########"##########  !"#  $%" 

" 

 () * )  +  )'  





     &'()&

)  

*/   "" "00 1  ', %1 '--.$ 21  2101 1"%1 10213 1"4 541&6721 5"8 !09999999999101 " :;'--/&/

  1 11"0 1"1 %"1" 1#011  13/

   11"311 1 82<  1#011  13.%1'--.

4 (*+,('--.531 10<01 82< *=0#'--) 1# 34<  1#3* /'->('--)5/

  "   1  31    $ 1 "%1    3 ? <  1 11@2811"0'--)21 /

'/   =-01'--.$!09999999999$A1 ""0"   1   3  9999999999   9999999999$  11  1# 011  132"" 11"1 / 1" 0"   0110%2 1,6A0 31$0"0  101   " 011  1%  *- B1  *C+, 41&67  6A0 D  . *-/-=5$21 %1 "001?6""%"121 1"/

   "  8 2 1"   11" @   8  @21 1 "1  "  101  @1 # "  31 11# 8  "  % 21 $ " %1 31 /

=/  '*B1'--.$21  01""1 1#011  13 1 @22%1 0@83"0/

)  + 

*/  E" 2 1 +>  "1   " 011  1%  *'  0# *C+.4 & .*-5$B11 1"011  1%@111"   31" 0"0 4/*5/B11 1"011  1% $ @< $"8 1F  160 " 10 A1$ 101 "3111#"4/'5/31 "$ 0"0    101  <    B11 1" 011  1% %  31 2"#B  2 0 1"   1    B" 6  " 131 1"   11"/  1"1 1"   1 .- 8 .' "  "  1#4/)5/

(*+,-('--. &=()&

'/  0 1" 1  % 2 "1 @1  4/G $1 "1 011  13$=60/$"*+*./='+D (+*=('--=)"%0# '--=5/

=/   @16@ 1#011  132 "0   " "H    0 1"  101 /    " %"F 8 21 "00"#B "0 /

)/      I 20"0  "    $ 2  211 1"%"1"1 21  % " B1? B 11#/

  E2A1  2 11"  %"1$ 1    " 2101   "?" / JJJJJ

,() +  )    

1%#"1 B =-01'--.!09999999999  3  9999999999   9999999999 9999999999$ "   11"  21  K101 1" ',%1'--.D

 0 821 2101 1" "00"#B "0 D

1 @K1K IK0"0 $1"2101 D

"001@    <  8 ! "#  $ %"   "  11 @K8 21 K101 1" /

E1A 7 !0"%F$1 $!/FL6$!0:1$!/ L1$BA$ !/"$BA /

"0 1#011  137

A3316&B1 B/7  %1&1 7     !/ ""1 /"%F  

(*+,-('--. &)()& 

"1"3"0 <  "001@? 1/

 6%$  A33167           

(*+,-('--.