State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Wisconsin > 402 > 402.302

402.302

402.302 Unconscionable contract or clause.

402.302(1)

(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.

402.302(2)

(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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

Conspicuousness necessary for effective warranty disclaimer is discussed. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc. 932 F.2d 681 (1991).

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Wisconsin > 402 > 402.302

402.302

402.302 Unconscionable contract or clause.

402.302(1)

(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.

402.302(2)

(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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

Conspicuousness necessary for effective warranty disclaimer is discussed. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc. 932 F.2d 681 (1991).

State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Wisconsin > 402 > 402.302

402.302

402.302 Unconscionable contract or clause.

402.302(1)

(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.

402.302(2)

(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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

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.

402.302 - ANNOT.

Conspicuousness necessary for effective warranty disclaimer is discussed. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc. 932 F.2d 681 (1991).