The Advocate. Volume 50, Part 5 (1992), p. 749-760.
The recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Smyth v. Szep once again canvasses the validity of releases signed by injured victims in favour of insurance companies and once again plunges into the murky waters of contractual unconscionability. Both issues have become more or less permanent squatters on judicial calendars throughout North America, and it seems worthwhile to consider why this is so and whether something can be done to reduce their tenure at least in Canada.
Vaver, David. "Case Comment: Smyth v. Szep Unsettling Settlements: Of Unconscionability and Other Things." The Advocate 50.5 (1992): 749-760.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.