Opinion ID: 3029863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington Law of Unconscionability

Text: [3] “Unconscionability is a doctrine under which courts may deny enforcement of all or part of an unfair or oppressive contract based on abuses during the process of forming a contract or within the actual terms of the contract itself.” David K. DeWolf, et al., 25 Wash. Practice Series, Contract Law & Practice § 9.5 (2003). Washington recognizes two classifications of unconscionability, substantive and procedural. See Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc., 2004 WL 3016484, at  (Wash. Dec. 23, 2004) (citing Nelson v. McGoldrick, 896 P.2d 1258, 1262 (Wash. 1995), and Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc., 544 P.2d 20, 23 (Wash. 1975)). “Substantive unconscionablity involves those cases where a clause or term in the contract is alleged to be one-sided or overly harsh. . . .” “ ‘Shocking to the conscience’, ‘monstrously harsh’, and ‘exceedingly calloused’ are terms sometimes used to define substantive unconscionability.” Procedural unconscionability is the “lack of a meaningful choice, considering all the circumstances surrounding the transaction including “ ‘[t]he manner in which the contract was entered,” whether the party had “a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract,” and whether “the important terms [were] hidden in a maze of fine print.’ ” Zuver 2004 WL 3016484, at  (quoting Schroeder, 544 P.2d at 23, and Nelson, 896 P.2d at 1262) (emendations in the original). See also Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 2004 WL 3016302, at  (Wash. Dec. 23, 2004). [4] In Washington, a contract generally may be invalid based on either substantive or procedural unconscionability. AL-SAFIN v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES 659 See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 998 P.2d 305, 314-16 (Wash. 2000) (en banc); Tjart v. Smith Barney, Inc., 28 P.3d 823, 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (recognizing that a contract may be unenforceable based on procedural unconscionability only); see also Zuver, 2004 WL 3016484, at  n.4. In the employment context, the Washington Supreme Court, while “hold[ing] that substantive unconscionability alone can support a finding of unconscionability,” has recently “decline[d] to consider whether [procedural unconscionability] alone will support a claim of unconscionability.” Adler, 2004 WL 3016302, at .