S.D. Codified Laws § 57A-2-302

Unconscionable contract or clause

Known as the Uniform Commercial Code

The act spans §§ 57A-1-101 to 57A-9-809 (574 sections).

Applied in 11 court decisions — leading case Durham v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1982)

Most recently applied in Dakota Style Foods, Inc. v. Sunopta Grains & Foods, Inc. (July 2018)

Source: SL 1966, ch 150, § 2-302; SDCL, §§ 57-4-2, 57-4-3.

How often courts cite this section

citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

Official source: South Dakota Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain South Dakota statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.