Talk:Unconscionability

Typically, such a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

I think this sentence is incorrect. Unconscionability is a doctrine reserved for contracts (or contract provisions) that are outrageously unfair. Courts use it as a last resort. In cases in which there is a lack of consideration, courts needn't invoke unconscionabilty; courts need only invoke lack of consideration.--RMKeaton 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyds Bank v Bundy

Isn't this case a claim about undue influence - Bundy claimed the manager unduly influenced his decision - rather than Unconscionable bargain? Lisiate 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement 205-208

I just added a small section on R2d 208. I don't have time to do more now, but I think that's really what we want, rather than the discussion of mistake. Motorneuron (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about unconscionability arising from statute is just plain wrong

Looks like it was written by someone who is CLEARLY not a lawyer. As noted, such a contract would be unenforceable in the face of those statutes, but NOT on grounds of unconscionability. Rather, the clause would be void for illegality or in violation of public policy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the garbage by 70.178.75.61. Amazing it was in here so long---no one is watching the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

I am under the impression that it is bad form to put "citation needed" in the introduction of an article. The statements in the introduction are supposed to be supported by citations in the main body. On a related note, is there a tag for statements in an introduction that are not supported in the body text? MathEconMajor (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in Australian Case Law cites irrelevant sources

The last paragraph say Australian legal scholars suggest "unconscionability" should be renamed to "dog act". It uses the Western Australian legislation, Dog Act 1976, as an example - but that legislation is just about dog ownership. It also references the court case, Carr v R [2009] NSWSC 995 as another example, although in that case the reference to "dog act" is just a quote from the offender and not a legal term. AronSimpson (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]