Final answer:
False. Unfairness in the bargaining process is typically thought of as substantive unconscionability, not procedural unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability refers to unfair or deceptive practices in the bargaining process, while substantive unconscionability refers to the unfair or oppressive terms of the agreement.
Step-by-step explanation:
False. Unfairness in the bargaining process is typically thought of as substantive unconscionability, not procedural unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability refers to unfair or deceptive practices in the bargaining process, such as unequal bargaining power, lack of transparency, and coercion. Substantive unconscionability, on the other hand, refers to the unfair or oppressive terms of the agreement itself.
In the context of negotiations or bargaining, unfairness can arise from a variety of factors, including power imbalances, lack of information, and biased decision-making processes. Procedural unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the process, while substantive unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the outcome or terms.
For example, if a car dealership deliberately withholds important information about a car's history during negotiations, that would be an example of procedural unconscionability. If the final agreement includes terms that are extremely one-sided and disproportionately favor the dealership, that would be an example of substantive unconscionability.