What is the doctrine of unconscionability in civil litigation?

The doctrine of unconscionability in civil litigation is a principle that is used to determine if a contract is unenforceable due to unfairness. In Washington, this doctrine looks at the circumstances that existed at the time the contract was made and decides whether it would be unconscionable to enforce the contract. When determining unconscionability, courts will typically consider the bargaining power of both parties, the language of the contract, the possibility of misunderstanding, the level of sophistication of the parties in understanding the contract’s terms and conditions, and the commercial purpose of the contract. If the court finds that the contract is unconscionable due to the unfairness of the terms, it will often refuse to enforce the contract. Unconscionability is most often seen in contracts where one party has used their position of power to take advantage of the other. Unconscionability can also be seen in contracts with terms that are extremely one-sided. It is up to the court to decide if the contract is indeed unconscionable. If it is determined to be unconscionable, the court can refuse to enforce the contract or modify the terms so that it is enforceable. The doctrine of unconscionability is an important part of civil litigation in Washington and courts are given the power to void contracts that are deemed to be unfair. This ensures that both parties to the contract will be treated fairly and that contracts are created and enforced in an equitable manner.

Related FAQs

What is the doctrine of unconscionability in civil litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts