CO Code § 4-2-302 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 2 - Sales|Part 3 - General Obligation and Construction of Contract|§ 4-2-302. Unconscionable Contract or Clause

  If the court, as a matter of law, finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.    When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable, the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect, to aid the court in making the determination.     History. Source: L. 65: P. 1306, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-302. History. Source: L. 65: P. 1306, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-302.    OFFICIAL COMMENT   Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None.   Purposes:   1. This section is intended to make it possible for the courts to police explicitly against the contracts or clauses which they find to be unconscionable. In the past such policing has been accomplished by adverse construction of language, by manipulation of the rules of offer and acceptance or by determinations that the clause is contrary to public policy or to the dominant purpose of the contract. This section is intended to allow the court to pass directly on the unconscionability of the contract or particular clause therein and to make a conclusion of law as to its unconscionability. The basic test is whether, in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract. Subsection (2) makes it clear that it is proper for the court to hear evidence upon these questions. The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise (Cf. Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz, 172 F.2d 80, 3d Cir. 1948) and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power. The underlying basis of this section is illustrated by the results in cases such as the following:   Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corporation, 93 Utah 414, 73 P.2d 1272 , where a clause limiting time for complaints was held inapplicable to latent defects in a shipment of catsup which could be discovered only by microscopic analysis; Hardy v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 38 Ga.App. 463, 144 S.E. 327 (1928), holding that a disclaimer of warranty clause applied only to express warranties, thus letting in a fair implied warranty; Andrews Bros. v. Singer Co. (1934 CA) 1 K.B. 17, holding that where a car with substantial mileage was delivered instead of a “new” car, a disclaimer of warranties, including those “implied,” left unaffected an “express obligation” on the description, even though the Sale of Goods Act called such an implied warranty; New Prague Flouring Mill Co. v. G. A. Spears, 194 Iowa 417, 189 N.W. 815 (1922), holding that a clause permitting the seller, upon the buyer's failure to supply shipping instructions, to cancel, ship, or allow delivery date to be indefinitely postponed 30 days at a time by the inaction, does not indefinitely postpone the date of measuring damages for the buyer's breach, to the seller's advantage; and Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. Dirks, 100 Kan. 376, 164 P. 273 (1917), where under a similar clause in a rising market the court permitted the buyer to measure his damages for non-delivery at the end of only one 30 day postponement; Green v. Arcos, Ltd. (1931 CA) 47 T.L.R. 336, where a blanket clause prohibiting rejection of shipments by the buyer was restricted to apply to shipments where discrepancies represented merely mercantile variations; Meyer v. Packard Cleveland Motor Co., 106 Ohio St. 328, 140 N.E. 118 (1922), in which the court held that a “waiver” of all agreements not specified did not preclude implied warranty of fitness of a rebuilt dump truck for ordinary use as a dump truck; Austin Co. v. J. H. Tillman Co., 104 Or. 541, 209 P. 131 (1922), where a clause limiting the buyer's remedy to return was held to be applicable only if the seller had delivered a machine needed for a construction job which reasonably met the contract description; Bekkevold v. Potts, 173 Minn. 87, 216 N.W. 790, 59 A.L.R. 1164 (1927), refusing to allow warranty of fitness for purpose imposed by law to be negated by clause excluding all warranties “made” by the seller; Robert A. Munroe Co. v. Meyer (1930) 2 K.B. 312, holding that the warranty of description overrides a clause reading “with all faults and defects” where adulterated meat not up to the contract description was delivered.   2. Under this section the court, in its discretion, may refuse to enforce the contract as a whole if it is permeated by the unconscionability, or it may strike any single clause or group of clauses which are so tainted or which are contrary to the essential purpose of the agreement, or it may simply limit unconscionable clauses so as to avoid unconscionable results.   3. The present section is addressed to the court, and the decision is to be made by it. The commercial evidence referred to in subsection (2) is for the court's consideration, not the jury's. Only the agreement which results from the court's action on these matters is to be submitted to the general triers of the facts.   Definitional Cross Reference:   “Contract”. Section 4-1-201 .   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Exclusion and Modification of Warranty under the U.C.C. — How to Succeed in Business Without Being Liable for Not Really Trying”, see 46 Den. L.J. 579 (1969). For note, “Exculpatory Clauses and Public Policy: A Judicial Dilemma”, see 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 793 (1982). For article, “When are Merger Clauses Unconscionable?”, see 64 Den. U.L. Rev. 529 (1988).   Finding of unconscionability is a question of law. Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845 (10th Cir. 1986).   In order to support a finding of unconscionability, there must be evidence of some overreaching on the part of one of the parties such as that which results from an inequality of bargaining power or under other circumstances in which there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to that party. McMillion v. McMillion, 31 Colo. App. 33, 522 P.2d 125 (1974); Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., 712 P.2d 985 (Colo. 1986); Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845 (10th Cir. 1986); Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835 (Colo. App. 1988).   Whether contract was unconscionable is discussed in Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845 (10th Cir. 1986); Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835 (Colo. App. 1988).   Applied in In re Stokes, 43 Colo. App. 461, 608 P.2d 824 (1979); In re Manzo, 659 P.2d 669 (Colo. 1983).