Substantive Unconscionability: The Championsworld V. USSF Case

employed however to do so they must relocate. An employee in this circumstance may have lost the skills to be considered for a position in a new company, the employer holds all the power.
The key element of substantive unconscionability focuses on the terms of the contract and if those terms were written in an egregious manner by one party, when viewed in the light of the respective commercial market. An example of substantive unconscionability is the Championsworld v. USSF case. USSF was charged Championsworld a fee of 20% while the market rate was 2%. The court found the fee to be exorbitant. The exact definition of what is egregious and what is not egregious is not defined by the court but deduced case by case.
Therefore, applying
The company Ahed started RoboticFX created a robot that operated in the same market as iRobot’s robot but by all accounts was constructed differently. The invention and confidentiality agreement created by iRobot did not include a timeframe and therefore goes for perpetuity. As such, the clause prevented Ahed from using information even after it became public and no longer fit within the original umbrella of the agreement. RoboticFX contends that the disclosure of iRobot’s proprietary information through competition, tradeshows, field work, and patents made the majority of the invention no longer subject to trade secret laws. Under the common law the accuser (iRobot) must prove theft of a trade secret and the accuser must surpass a high threshold to prove an idea is a trade secret. Disclosure of that information in the public domain abolishes the secret. Merely requiring Ahed to repeatedly sign the confidentiality agreement repeatedly does not meet the high burden of proof. As a consequence, Ahed was unfairly punished for previous work at iRobot while others could access the information in public domain and not be subject to the same rules. iRobot’s assertion that RoboticFX could not use information put an unjust and undue economic pressure on RoboticFX’s ability to sell robots.
RoboticFX includes a claim of unconscionability in its suit against iRobot. Ahed was forced to sign the confidentiality agreement or face unemployment. For this reason, the court should find the forced signing of the contract procedurally unconscionable. Additionally, the language of the contract unfairly favored iRobot setting up the element of substantive unconscionability. Since