Since I'm at home, I went to Google Scholar and searched legal documents for "contract unenforceable" - and this is the first case that pops up: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16049594513709134145&q=contract+unenforceable&hl=en&as_sdt=2,46
99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000), 24 Cal.4th 83, 6 P.3d 669 Marybeth ARMENDARIZ et al. v. FOUNDATION HEALTH PSYCHCARE SERVICES, INC.
Check page 767 on unconscionability - this is not the same argument I mentioned earlier about contacts not waiving common law rights, but it is an interesting angle - since you are required to agree to the SE contract in order to play, SE has unfair bargaining power and therefore the contract provision is unenforceable. Not saying this is the end of it but this would make a nice section II of the opposition brief and I'm telling ya at $30 a pop the court would not dismiss the claim. And what some of you guys are saying about the contract being enforceable and the EA time being not really what was paid for is exactly what SE's position would be, I get that. It's all about having right on your side, smiling at the judge and having an effective legal writing style.
Here's Page 767: We explained the judicially created doctrine of unconscionability in Scissor-Tail, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165. Unconscionability analysis 767*767 begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. (Id. at pp. 817-819, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165.) "The term [contract of adhesion] signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694, 10 Cal.Rptr. 781.) If the contract is adhesive, the court must then determine whether "other factors are present which, under established legal rules — legislative or judicial — operate to render it [unenforceable]." (Scissor-Tail, supra, at p. 820, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165, fn. omitted.) "Generally speaking, there are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof. The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or `adhering' party will not be enforced against him. [Citations.] The second — a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally — is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or `unconscionable.' " (Ibid.) Subsequent cases have referred to both the "reasonable expectations" and the "oppressive" limitations as being aspects of unconscionability. (See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487, 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 (A & M Produce Co.).) Edited, Aug 25th 2013 2:46pm by Ivart