Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Wis. Stat. § 402.302

Unconscionable contract or clause

Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones (2006)

Most recently applied in In re First Phoenix-Weston, LLC (August 2017)

How often courts cite this section

20032010201710
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. Unconscionability requires an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party, together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other. To find unconscionability requires a certain quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability bears on a meeting of the minds, while substantive unconscionability pertains to the reasonableness of the contract terms themselves. Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics Machinery, 2003 WI 15, 259 Wis. 2d 587, 657 N.W.2d 411, 01-0242. Discussing the conspicuousness necessary for an effective warranty disclaimer. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc., 932 F.2d 681 (1991).

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