Opinion ID: 2543212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Missouri Requires Both Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability

Text: An unconscionable contract is unenforceable. State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853, 858 (Mo. banc 2006). An unconscionable contract is one in which no man in his senses and not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other, or one where there is an inequality so strong, gross, and manifest that it must be impossible to state it to one with common sense without producing an exclamation at the inequality of it. Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d 549, 554 (8th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Traditional unconscionability law in Missouri requires a showing that the contract is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Funding Sys. Leasing Corp. v. King Louie Int'l, Inc., 597 S.W.2d 624, 633-34 (Mo.App.1979); see also Brewer I (Price, J., dissenting) and cases cited therein. Substantive unconscionability concerns the actual terms of the contract, asking whether the terms are so one-sided that they are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Vincent, 194 S.W.3d at 858. [6] Procedural unconscionability, on the other hand, deals with the formalities of making the contract and focuses on whether the parties had a voluntary and sufficient meeting of the minds to bind each other to the terms of the writing. Procedural unconscionability focuses on things such as high pressure sales tactics, unreadable fine print, or misrepresentation among other unfair issues in the contract formation process. Repair Masters Const., Inc. v. Gary, 277 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Mo.App.2009) (internal citations omitted). A showing of procedural unconscionability is required; otherwise, a party is presumed to know what he signed and that he agreed to it. See Sanger v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 486 S.W.2d 477, 481 (Mo. banc 1972). The idea is that if a contract provision is so substantively unfair that no man in his senses would agree to it, only deception and like acts would have caused him to agree to it; and that deception must be shown as a matter of fact.