Brief Fact Summary. Elizabeth and Charles Maxwell, (Appellants), brought an action for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that their contract for financing with Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., (Appellee) was unenforceable due to unconscionability. Appellants appeals the trial court ruling of summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Claims of unconscionability can be established with either a showing of substantive unconscionability alone, especially in cases involving either price-cost disparity or limitation of remedies.
There have been exceptional cases where a provision of the contract is so outrageous as to warrant holding it unenforceable on the ground of substantive unconscionability alone.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the contract’s security provisions present a question of unconscionability.
Held. Yes. The apparent injustice and oppression in these security provisions constitute not only a question of substantive unconscionability but possibly even procedural unconscionability.
Discussion. Based on these facts it cannot be said that the contract is not unconscionable. The price could be considered grossly excessive giving rise to substantive unconscionablity. Further the security terms allow Appellee not only to repossess the water heater but also to foreclose on Appellants’ home. This apparent injustice and oppression in the security terms may not only constitute substantive unconscionability but also procedural unconscionability.