Abstract
This Article draws on commercial law doctrine and literature to call for an end to cubewrap terms. It argues that the justifications for delayed-term consumer contracts are inapplicable to cubewrap agreements and that the dangers of withholding terms are particularly acute in the employment context. It calls for mandatory disclosure of terms on penalty of non-enforcement, thus providing a bright-line, formation-based rule voiding cubewrap terms regardless of their substantive content. Part I provides an overview of the law of delayed-term commercial contracts and compares judicial treatment of arbitration and noncompete agreements. Part II discusses the rationale for delayed-term consumer contracts, as well as the contemporary critique of manufacturers' contracting practices. It argues that the justifications proposed in support of delayed-term contracts do not carry over to employment contracts and that the legitimate concerns raised by critics and consumer rights advocates apply with even greater force in the employment context. Finally, Part III offers some initial ideas about the viability of a disclosure requirement as a complement to substantive regulation in policing cubewrap terms.
How to Cite
49 Ariz. L. Rev. 637 (2007)
16
Views
18
Downloads