Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: 1. The contract was unfair at the time it was entered into because the plaintiffs had no real choice between the contingency fee agreement and a fee-for-service arrangement. 2. The contract was unfair because it was guaranteed to produce a substantial premium to counsel even though there was little or no risk that counsel would not be paid for their work. 3. The learned chambers judge erred in not distinguishing this case from Deans v. Armstrong. 4. In any event, risk or no risk, the fee was inordinately high.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.