Requiring low-paid drivers to sign an Arbitration Clause removing their right to local court processes can be unconscionable and, if so, the clause is not enforceable. This was the conclusion reached by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada when considering a contractual provision that mandated all external dispute resolution processes go through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands and required upfront fees of $14,500USD to do so. In this case note, it is argued that the Canadian decision opens the door for the United Kingdom to rethink the role of unconscionability and how the doctrine could apply to modern contractual arrangements. Heller v Uber Technologies provides the opportunity to develop the elements of unconscionability in a way that tackles inequality of bargaining power in standard form contracts, particularly when they fall outside the protection of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

中文翻译：

---

意识到现代的不合情理：海勒诉优步科技

要求低薪司机签署仲裁条款，取消他们使用当地法院程序的权利可能是不合情理的，如果是这样，则该条款不可强制执行。这是加拿大最高法院大多数成员在考虑一项合同条款时得出的结论，该条款要求所有外部争议解决程序都在荷兰进行调解和仲裁，并需要支付 14,500 美元的预付费用。在本案例说明中，有人认为加拿大的决定为英国重新思考不合情理的作用以及该原则如何适用于现代合同安排打开了大门。海勒诉优步科技 提供机会以解决标准形式合同中议价能力不平等的方式发展不合情理的要素，特别是当它们不受《2015 年消费者权利法》的保护时。