UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV2127
Substantive unconscionability.
[Name of party] claims that the contract [or, alternatively, the following terms of the contract (list terms)] is unenforceable because it is substantively unconscionable.
Substantive unconscionability focuses on the terms of the contract. It requires you to examine the relative fairness of the contract at the time it was entered into. Even if a contract is unreasonable or more advantageous to one party, the contract, without more, is not unconscionable. Rather, in order to find that the contract [or contract terms] is substantively unconscionable, you must find that [name of party] proved the following by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) That the contract terms are so one-sided as to oppress or surprise an innocent party, or
(2) That the contract terms result in an overall imbalance in the parties' obligations and rights that is inconsistent with accepted customs and business practices at the time and place the contract was made.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
1d664813d586c84ff5d79afa2f4bd867dcf786da98317b6e08d1df777baf6f9c
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.