IV Unconscionability
Appalachian
contends articles 7 and 14 are not enforceable because both are unconscionable.
The doctrine
of unconscionability is codified in Civil Code section 1670.5. Section 1670.5,
in pertinent part, provides: "If the court as a matter of law finds the
contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time
it was made the court may . . . enforce the remainder of the contract without
the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any
unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result." The doctrine of
unconscionability applies to all provisions of all contracts and has both a
"procedural" and a "substantive" element. (H.S.
Perlin Co. v. Morse Signal Devices
(1989) 209 Cal.App. 3d 1289, 1300-1301.) As we explained in A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App. 3d 473:
"The
procedural element focuses on two factors: 'oppression' and 'surprise.'
'Oppression' arises from an inequality of bargaining power which results in no
real negotiation and 'an absence of meaningful choice.' 'Surprise' involves the
extent to which the supposedly agreed-upon terms of the bargain are hidden in a
prolix printed form drafted by the party seeking to enforce the disputed terms.
Characteristically, the form contract is drafted by the party with the superior
bargaining position.
"Of course the
mere fact that a contract term is not read or understood by the nondrafting
party or that the drafting party occupies a superior bargaining position will
not authorize a court to refuse to enforce the contract. Although an argument
can be made that contract terms not actively negotiated between the parties
fall outside the 'circle of assent' which constitutes the actual agreement,
commercial practicalities dictate that unbargained-for terms only be denied
enforcement where they are also substantively
unreasonable. One commentator has pointed out, however, that, '. . .
unconscionability turns not only on a "one-sided" result, but also on an
absence of "justification" for it[,]' which is only to say that substantive
unconscionability must be evaluated as of the time the contract was made. The
most detailed and specific commentaries observe that a contract is largely an
allocation of risks between the parties, and therefore that a contractual term
is substantively suspect if it reallocates the risks of the bargain in an
objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner. But not all unreasonable risk
reallocations are unconscionable; rather, enforceability of the clause is tied
to the procedural aspects of unconscionability such that the greater the unfair
surprise or inequality of bargaining power, the less unreasonable the risk
reallocation which will be tolerated." (Id.
at pp. 486–487, citations and fn. omitted.)
Appalachian
contents the "procedural element" of unconscionability exists here because,
Appalachian assets, McDonnell Douglas "had an absolute monopoly on the sale of
the PAM-D, which was essential for the launch of any commercial satellite in
the United States," used that monopoly power to require all customers to accept
the exculpatory clause which insulated McDonnell Douglas from liability and
left Western with "no 'meaningful choice' other than to accept [McDonnell
Douglas's] contractual terms." The record does not support these conclusions.
It is true,
that at the time Western Union sought to launch its Westar VI satellite,
McDonald Douglas was the only company supplying upper stage rockets for the
Space Shuttle. To that extent, McDonnell Douglas had a monopoly. But, McDonnell
Douglas did not have "an absolute monopoly" on the means of launching a
telecommunications satellite into a geosynchronous orbit; owners of
telecommunications satellites had the option of launching their satellites into
geosynchronous orbit via the Ariane rocket of the European Space Agency. An
Ariane launch did not require the purchase of an upper stage rocket from
McDonnell Douglas. Here, Western Union, in fact, initially contracted with
Arianespace to launch the Westar VI into geosynchronous orbit. Western Union
terminated that contract, not because Arianespace was not unavailable, but
because Western Union decided the Space Shuttle presented a more reliable and
cheaper option. Thus, contrary to Appalachian's contention, McDonnell Douglas
had no monopoly vis-a-vis the means of launching satellites into geosynchronous
orbits.
Appalachian
contents McDonnell Douglas used oppressive negotiating practices and cites
evidence of NASA's concerns about McDonnell Douglas's contracting practices.
Appalachian,
in particular, cites a July 1983 letter from James Abrahamson, NASA's
Association Administrator for Space Flight, responding to McDonnell Douglas's
request for an increase in the ceiling price. In the letter, Abrahamson noted
NASA had "received a series of major customer complaints about [McDonnell
Douglas's] contractual approach" and stated "it has become increasingly clear
that there are significant incompatibilities between the NASA Launch Services
Agreement and the [McDonnell Douglas] contract." Abrahamson explained:
"To insure
there is no misunderstanding, I would like to emphasize that customer
complaints are not directed at [McDonnell Douglas's] performance, the PAM-D as
a system, or [McDonnell Douglas's] dedication and commitment to customer
satisfaction. Both our customers and NASA are delighted with each of those
important areas of performance. We are gratified that our partnership has
worked so well for the Space Transportation System and our customers to this
point.
"However, our
new customers are gravely concerned with your contracting approach. They
complain that there is no apparent willingness, on the part of [McDonnell
Douglas], to undertake responsibilities normally agreed to in the aerospace
payload industry; e.g., responsibility for hardware performance, for late
delivery of the hardware, for acknowledging equity to the customer in the case
of termination, and for granting access to technical information . . . ."
Abrahamson
disapproved McDonald Douglas's requested increase in the ceiling price at that
time, but added he "would be pleased to continue the discussion within the
broader content of both price and an acceptable customer contractual approach .
. . ."
This letter,
however, does not tell the whole story. After the letter, as a result of pressure
from NASA and Western Union, McDonnell Douglas gave additional concessions to
Western Union. Thus, Western Union was not the victim of allegedly oppressive
contracting practices by McDonald Douglas; McDonnell Douglas responded to the
complaints and yielded to the bargaining power of Western Union and NASA.
Moreover, as to article 14, the record is clear this provision was neither
drafted nor insisted upon by McDonnell Douglas, but was drafted by Western
Union and agreed to by both parties.
As to the second
factor of procedural element of unconscionability—"unfair surprise"—Appalachian
does not assert any unfair surprise occurred here nor would the record support
such an assertion. The record shows Western Union was well aware of article 7.
It had dealt with similar provisions in earlier contracts with McDonnell
Douglas and in this contract negotiated changes in the article. As to article
14, surprise cannot be claimed since Western Union itself drafted the
provision.
Appalachian
argues there is "substantive" unconscionability present here. Appalachian
asserts the disclaimers are not "consistent with aerospace industry practice,"
explaining "[n]ormally, [Western Union] obtains warranties from its vendors."
The evidence in the record fails to support Appalachian's assertion.
The citations
are to testimony by Western Union contracting officer Anthony Cammarato
addressing a different matter, i.e., Western Union's general policy when
purchasing existing goods and services and, in particular, Western Union's use
of printed purchase order forms containing a standard warranty for most
procurements. Appalachian ignores Cammarato's later deposition testimony
addressing the specific contract and warranty disclaimer here at issue.
Cammarato stated it was "a standard way of doing business in the industry."
Cammarato explained McDonnell Douglas did not agree to the warranty "because
it's a high risk business," Western Union did not make any complaints about
McDonnell Douglas's "take it or leave it" contracting attitude, and that
Western Union's rationale for not seeking a warranty was "there's no such thing
as a free lunch, and even if [McDonnell Douglas] would agree [to a warranty],
there would be a charge."12 Appalachian also ignores evidence
showing article 14 was drafted to comply with the inter-party waiver in the
Launch Services Agreement, a condition imposed by NASA, rather than McDonnell
Douglas.
Appalachian
asserts the disclaimers were not a "commercially reasonable allocation of
risk." To support its position, Appalachian relies on language in A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., supra, 135 Cal.App. 3d 473,
where we stated "[f]rom a social perspective, risk of loss is most
appropriately borne by the party best able to prevent its occurrence.
[Citations.] Rarely would the buyer be in a better position than the
manufacturer-seller to evaluate the performance characteristics of a machine."
(Id. at pp. 491-492.) Appalachian asserts this case fits within the guidelines
of the A & M Produce case because
"[i]t is beyond dispute that [MCDONNELL DOUGLAS], MORTON THIOKOL and HITCO were
in a better position than [WESTERN UNION] to prevent the exit cone failure that
occurred in this case."
Appalachian's
argument is overly simplistic. If unconscionability could be established merely
by showing the manufacturer/seller's superior ability to detect defects, then
the general rule would be that disclaimers were unconscionable and illegal.
Warranty disclaimers, however, are specifically authorized by the California
Uniform Commercial Code (see Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2316) and the Supreme Court
has held "no public policy opposes private, voluntary transactions in which one
party, for a consideration, agrees to shoulder a risk which the law would
otherwise have placed upon the other party." (Tunkl v. Regents of
University of California (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 92, 101.)
Further,
Appalachian's reliance on our decision in A
& M Produce is misplaced; Appalachian ignores the factual context of
that case. A & M Produce involved
the sale of a mass-produced product by "an enormous diversified corporation" to
"a relatively small but experienced farming company" using a standardized
preprinted form with a warranty disclaimer printed on the reverse side which
was never read by the buyer. (A & M
Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., supra,
135 Cal.App. 3d 473, 489-491.) In this factual context, we stated "[I]t is
patently unreasonable to assume that a buyer would purchase a standardized
mass-produced product from an industry seller without any enforceable
performance standards." (Id. at p.
491.) We also observed:
"Especially
where an inexperienced buyer is concerned [the buyer here was venturing into a
new area, was unfamiliar with the equipment and turned to the seller's agent
for recommendations as to what equipment was necessary], the seller's
performance representations are absolutely necessary to allow the buyer to make
an intelligent choice among the competitive options available. A seller's
attempt, through the use of a disclaimer, to prevent the buyer from reasonably
relying on such representations calls into question the commercial
reasonableness of the agreement and may well be substantively unconscionable."
(Id. at p. 492.)
Here, the
contract was not a standardized printed form for the sale of a mass-produced
product; here the contract was negotiated. It involved specialized services and
new technology developed in a "high risk business." Western Union was not an
inexperienced buyer who had to rely on McDonnell Douglas's representations;
Western Union was a large, sophisticated corporation experienced in launching
telecommunications satellites. Western Union was further given periodic
progress reports, including reports of two test failures of the Star 48 motor.
In this
context, of a highly specialized, risky new technology, it was not commercially
unreasonable for the parties to agree Western Union would obtain insurance to
protect it against the risk of loss rather than to have McDonnell Douglas
warrant performance of the upper stage rocket. As a practical matter, it was a
question of whether Western Union wanted to directly pay for insurance by
obtaining insurance itself or indirectly pay for insurance by requiring
McDonnell Douglas obtain the insurance and give a warranty.13 It was
reasonable for Western Union to agree to obtain its own insurance directly
rather than to pay an increased contract price which would include McDonnell
Douglas's costs in administering the insurance for Western Union's benefit. We
do not find any unconscionability existing in articles 7 and 14 of the Western
Union and McDonnell Douglas contract.
|