The trial court properly found MoneyGram’s arbitration clause unconscionable and denied its motion to compel arbitration.  The clause was procedurally unconscionable as it appeared in nearly illegible 6 pt type on the back of a money transfer order form.  It was also an adhesion contract.  To prove procedural unconscionability, plaintiff didn’t have to show a lack of alternatives in the market–market alternatives play a role only when surprise is not an element of the procedural unconscionability at issue in the case.  It was substantively unconscionable in shortening the statute of limitations, requiring payment of higher commercial arbitration fees and providing that the parties would bear their own costs and fees for experts and attorneys.  The trial court also properly found that the unconscionable portions of the clause could not be severed as doing so would make material changes to the agreement as a whole and would not serve the ends of justice but merely reward the defendant for a clause apparently intended to take unfair advantage of its customers.