Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 5-19-16 (2026)

Refusal by Court to Enforce Unconscionable Agreement.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision 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 provision, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable provision as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(Acts 1971, No. 2052, p. 3290, §12; Acts 1996, No. 96-576, p. 887, §2.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1984–2003 · leading case: Am. Gen. Fin., Inc. v. Branch, 793 So. 2d 738 (Ala. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Gen. Fin., Inc. v. Branch, 793 So. 2d 738 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 3× “"The doctrine of unconscionability is codified in [Ala.Code 1975, § 5-19-16, which provides: "`With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,…”
Anderson v. Ashby, 873 So. 2d 168 (Ala. 2003). · cites it 4× “The doctrine of unconscionability is codified at [Ala.Code 1975, § 5-19-16], which provides: "`With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,…”
Rhode v. E & T Investments, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Ala. 1998). · cites it 4× “1982); Ala. Code 1975, § 5-19-16. The court, examining an arbitration clause in light of these factors, must determine whether the arbitration clause is so unfavorable that it would not have been reasonable for the party seeking to avoid it to have knowingly accepted the clause,…”
AmSouth Bank v. Dees, 847 So. 2d 923 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 2× “The defense of unconscionability is codified in Ala.Code 1975, § 5-19-16, which provides: "With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the…”
Roberson v. Money Tree of Alabama, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 1519 (M.D. Ala. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Alabama Code Mim-Code, 1975 Ala.Code § 5-19-16, provides that, “With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to…”
Rollins, Inc. v. Foster, 991 F. Supp. 1426 (M.D. Ala. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 1975 Ala.Code § 5-19-16. In addition, the Alabama Supreme Court has recognized a finding that an arbitration clause is an unjust and unreasonable contract of adhesion might be grounds not to enforce that clause under the FAA See Ex parte Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,…”
Goodwin v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 970 F. Supp. 1007 (M.D. Ala. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Alabama Mini-Code, 1975 Ala.Code § 5-19-16, provides that, “With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any provision of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce…”
E & W Bldg. Material Co. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 648 F. Supp. 289 (M.D. Ala. 1986). · cites it 2× “*291 Ala.Code § 5-19-16 (1981); Broadway v. Household Finance Corp.”
Winecoff v. Compass Bank, 876 So. 2d 1145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “As our supreme court has stated, § 5-19-16 provides a statutory defense of unconscionability in certain contract actions.”
Bramlett v. Adamson Ford, Inc., 717 So. 2d 772 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “The applicable statutes discussing unconscionability are Ala.Code 1975, §§ 5-19-16 and 7-2-302. With reference to a finding of unconscionability, both statutes use the phrase "if the court as a matter of law.”
Sanford v. H.A.S., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.D. Ala. 2001). · cites it 2× “” The parties agree that Sanford was not given a copy of the arbitration agreement on May 9.”
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Mattie D. Coleman, 736 F.2d 643 (11th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Ala. Code (1975) § 5-19-16. Appellant also argues that the adoption of these consumer protection laws have so modified the Alabama law as to permit this Court to determine, in the absence of any controlling authority, that the intent to be considered by the Court is the intent…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.