What is the doctrine of unconscionability in civil litigation?

The doctrine of unconscionability is a legal concept used in civil litigation in New Mexico. It involves an unfairness in a contract that is so extreme it shocks the conscience. Unconscionability is used as a defense to a breach of contract claim. Under the doctrine of unconscionability, a court may find a contract void or may limit the enforcement of the contract on the basis that it is unfairly one-sided. The courts will generally look at the unequal bargaining power of the parties, the lack of meaningful choice of the weaker party, and/or the imposition of oppressive terms. In New Mexico, there is no set definition of unconscionability and the courts will apply the legal concept on a case-by-case basis. Factors the court may consider include unfair surprise, oppressive terms, unreasonably low price, and/or intangible benefits such as mental anguish or embarrassment. The doctrine of unconscionability can be used as a defense if a party is able to show that the contract was so one-sided and unfair that no reasonable person would have agreed to it. However, the defense is not always successful. In some cases, courts may find that despite the unfairness of the contract, the parties had full knowledge of the terms and were free to negotiate them if they desired.

Related FAQs

What is the doctrine of unconscionability in civil litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts