Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2302 (2026)

Unconscionable contract or clause

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. 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.

B. 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 66× “A.R.S. § 47-2302. Financing for the purchase was accomplished through a loan to the Maxwells from Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.”
Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 8× “2d 51, 56 (quoting A.R.S. § 47-2302(A)). 5 A trial court has “three options [under A.”
Angus Med. Co. v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 840 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “(A.R.S. § 47-2302(A) provides as follows: If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause 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…”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 P.2d 198 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “See abo A.R.S. §§ 47-2302, 47-2316(D) (5 Ariz. Leg.”
Batory v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 4× “On July 8, 2005, the Court held a hearing pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-2302. At that hearing, Defendant solicited the testimony of Tammy Lenzy, an attorney that helped draft the DRP.”
Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “In its motion for summary judgment, Building Systems argued that it was not obligated to make rental payments under the lease because (1) there was a failure of performance of the lease, (2) the essential purpose of the lease was frustrated by the computer’s improper…”
Est. of Nelson v. Rice, 12 P.3d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 47-2302. ¶ 15 In refusing to rescind the sale on the basis of unconscionability, the trial court stated that, “[w]hile the results of the transaction may seem unconscionable to the [Estate] in hindsight, the terms of the contract certainly were not.”
Meek v. Meek, 539 P.3d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “”); A.R.S. § 47-2302(A) (The court may refuse to enforce a contract if it finds “the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made.”
Sw. Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Ariz. 2000). · cites it 2× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-2302 (1999). To that end, both Koch and Southwest have moved for summary judgment on this issue.”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 597 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 47-2302, the applicable U.C.C. provision on unconscionability in Arizona law dictates that the contract terms must be found to be unconscionable at the time the contract was entered.”
Sw. Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Ariz. 2000). “Section 47-2302(B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes states, “When it is claimed .”
Kocharov v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 47-2302(A); Maxwell v. Fid. Fin.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2302(A) — 7 cases
Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995). “A.R.S. § 47-2302. Financing for the purchase was accomplished through a loan to the Maxwells from Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.”
Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Ariz. 2011). “2d 51, 56 (quoting A.R.S. § 47-2302(A)). 5 A trial court has “three options [under A.”
Angus Med. Co. v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 840 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “(A.R.S. § 47-2302(A) provides as follows: If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause 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…”
Meek v. Meek, 539 P.3d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “”); A.R.S. § 47-2302(A) (The court may refuse to enforce a contract if it finds “the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made.”
Batory v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Ariz. 2006). “On July 8, 2005, the Court held a hearing pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-2302. At that hearing, Defendant solicited the testimony of Tammy Lenzy, an attorney that helped draft the DRP.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2302(B) — 3 cases
Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995). “A.R.S. § 47-2302. Financing for the purchase was accomplished through a loan to the Maxwells from Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.”
Sw. Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Ariz. 2000). “Section 47-2302(B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes states, “When it is claimed .”
Kocharov v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (D. Ariz. 2023). “A.R.S. § 47-2302(A); Maxwell v. Fid. Fin.”
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.