The Flaws of Magic Bullet Theory: Retraining Unconscionability to Discretely Target Different Contexts of Unfairness in Contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unconscionability has long been a troublesome area in Canadian jurisprudence. This is of significant concern given unconscionability’s pre-eminence as a protection of contractual fairness. This article elaborates a much-needed reorganization and rationalization of unconscionability in Canada. Under current law, a single doctrine hopelessly targets two divergent purposes. I set out here a proposed redevelopment rather of separate common law doctrines, each fit-for-purpose: (1) An English-style unconscionable bargains doctrine for avoiding bargains that exploited disability, and (2) an American-style unconscionable clauses doctrine to control unfair terms in standard form contracts. Extensive Canadian precedent supports this solution, assuring its feasibility and legitimacy. To manage the doctrines’ coexistence and clarify this universally confounding area of law, I recommend further a distinctly Canadian approach: Recognizing unconscionability as an “organizing principle”. Alongside that of good faith which governs performance, this one would address enforceability in abuse of power situations, elevating fairness in Canadian contract law.\nL’iniquité a longtemps été un domaine problématique dans la jurisprudence canadienne. Ceci est un enjeu important étant donné la prééminence du concept de l’iniquité comme protection juridique de l’équité contractuelle. Cet article élabore une réorganisation et une rationalisation nécessaire de l’iniquité au Canada. En vertu du droit actuel, une seule doctrine vise vainement deux objectifs divergents. J’expose ici une proposition de redéveloppement : à la place de cette approche futile, on devrait déployer deux doctrines de common law distinctes, chacune adaptée à son objectif unique : (1) une doctrine de négociation inique à l’anglaise pour éviter les transactions qui exploitent une faiblesse particulière, et (2) une doctrine des clauses iniques à l’américaine pour contrôler les clauses abusive dans les contrats d’adhésion. De nombreux précédents canadiens soutiennent cette solution, assurant sa faisabilité et sa légitimité. Pour gérer la coexistence des doctrines et clarifier ce domaine du droit universellement déroutant, je suggère une approche typiquement canadienne : reconnaître l’iniquité comme un « principe ». Parallèlement à celui de la bonne foi qui régit l’exécution contractuelle, celui-ci traiterait de la force exécutoire dans les situations d’abus de pouvoir, augmentant l’équité dans le droit des contrats au Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".