Wednesday, September 7, 2016

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Docket 15-16178, 15-16250, for publication, opinion by Judge Richard Clifton


Interpretation of contract (clause buried in the agreement): Interpretation of contract (party not familiar with the language of the instrument):

While we do not doubt that it was more burdensome to opt out of the arbitration provision by overnight delivery service than it would have been by e-mail, the contract bound Uber to accept opt-outs from those drivers who followed the procedure it set forth. There were some drivers who did opt out and whose opt-outs Uber recognized. Thus, the promise was not illusory. The fact that the opt-out provision was “buried in the agreement” does not change this analysis. Mohamed, 109 F.Supp. 3d at 1205. As we noted in Ahmed, “one who signs a contract is bound by its provisions and cannot complain of unfamiliarity with the language of the instrument.” 283 F.3d at 1200 (quoting Madden v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 552 P.2d 1178, 1185 (Cal. 1976)).


(9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sept. 7, 2016, Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Docket 15-16178, 15-16250, for publication, opinion by Judge Richard Clifton).


Un contrat est valide même si une clause contestée est en quelque sorte dissimulée dans le document, qui contient de très nombreuses pages. Un contrat est également valable même si l’un des cocontractants ne saisit pas le sens d’une des clauses.


No comments:

Post a Comment