UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV2128
Procedural unconscionability.
[Name of party] claims that the contract is unenforceable because it is procedurally unconscionable.
Procedural unconscionability focuses on the negotiation of the contract and the circumstances of the parties. In order to succeed on this claim, [name of party] must prove by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the contract was entered into, [name of other party] had an unfairly superior bargaining position and that he overreached in his negotiation with [name of party]. You may consider the following circumstances, keeping in mind that the purpose of procedural unconscionability is to prevent oppression and unfair surprise:
(1) whether each party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms and conditions of the agreement;
(2) whether there was a lack of opportunity for meaningful negotiation;
(3) whether the agreement was printed on a duplicate or boilerplate form drafted solely by the party in the strongest bargaining position;
(4) whether the terms of the agreement were explained to the weaker party;
(5) whether the [aggrieved party] had a meaningful choice or instead felt compelled to accept the terms of the agreement;
(6) whether the stronger party employed deceptive practices to hide key contractual provisions.
(7) [describe other circumstances raised by the evidence that show procedural unconscionability.]
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
b0e39d92f6b30854fa47ab9e7edb18d58a45146b9bd30000e1610b4988119342
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.