Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc.green2 sentences2023See id. at 25 , 644 S.E.2d at 669 ("In determining whether a contract was 'tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,' courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties' bargaining power; the parties' relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause." (quoting Carlson v. Gen. 2023See id. at 25 , 644 S.E.2d at 669 ("In determining whether a contract was 'tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,' courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties' bargaining power; the parties' relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause." (quoting Carlson v. Gen. | 5 | 12 |
Mary A. Carlson v. General Motors Corporationgreen2 sentences2012“In determining whether a contract was ‘tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,’ courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties’ bargaining power; the parties’ relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause.” Simpson, 373 S.C. at 25 , 644 S.E.2d at 669 (quoting Carlson, 883 F.2d at 293, 295 ); see also Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 269 , 612 S.E.2d 469, 476 ( 2007In determining whether a contract was “tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,” id. at 295 , courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties’ bargaining power; the parties’ relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause. | 3 | 5 |
Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. v. Whitegreen2 sentences2012Sys., Inc. v. White, 384 S.C. 606, 615 , 682 S.E.2d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2009) (“Rescission is an equitable remedy that attempts to undo a contract from the beginning as if the contract had never existed.”); Loyola Fed. 2012Sys., Inc. v. White, 384 S.C. 606, 615 , 682 S.E.2d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2009) (“Rescission is an equitable remedy that attempts to undo a contract from the beginning as if the contract had never existed.”); Loyola Fed. | 2 | 2 |
Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp.green2 sentences2012Corp., 343 S.C. 531, 541 , 542 S.E.2d 360, 365 (2001)). 2012Corp., 343 S.C. 531, 541 , 542 S.E.2d 360, 365 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Holler v. Hollergreen2 sentences2012“In determining whether a contract was ‘tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,’ courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties’ bargaining power; the parties’ relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause.” Simpson, 373 S.C. at 25 , 644 S.E.2d at 669 (quoting Carlson, 883 F.2d at 293, 295 ); see also Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 269 , 612 S.E.2d 469, 476 ( 2012“In determining whether a contract was ‘tainted by an absence of meaningful choice,’ courts should take into account the nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative disparity in the parties’ bargaining power; the parties’ relative sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the clause.” Simpson, 373 S.C. at 25 , 644 S.E.2d at 669 (quoting Carlson, 883 F.2d at 293, 295 ); see also Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 269 , 612 S.E.2d 469, 476 ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carolina Care Plan, Inc. v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Id. (citing Carlson v. Gen. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.