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.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kugler v. Romaingreen2 sentences2010The standard of conduct contemplated by the unconscionability clause is "good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair dealing [,]" and the need for application of that standard "is most acute when the professional seller is seeking the trade of those most subject to exploitation — the uneducated, the inexperienced and the people of low incomes." Ibid. 2001The standard of conduct contemplated by the unconscionability clause is "good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair dealing[,]" and the need for application of that standard "is most acute when the professional seller is seeking the trade of those most subject to exploitation-the uneducated, the inexperienced and the people of low incomes." Ibid. | 2 | 6 |
Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Livesaygreen2 sentences2001It is well established, however, that "`[t]he effect of the unconscionability rule is not designed to upset the terms of a contract resulting from superior bargaining strength, but to prevent oppression and unfair surprise.'" Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Livesay, 175 N.J.Super. 470, 480 , 419 A. 2d 1164 (Dist.Ct.1980) (quoting New Jersey Study Comment to N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302, par. 1). 2001It is well established, however, that "`[t]he effect of the unconscionability rule is not designed to upset the terms of a contract resulting from superior bargaining strength, but to prevent oppression and unfair surprise.'" Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Livesay, 175 N.J.Super. 470, 480 , 419 A. 2d 1164 (Dist.Ct.1980) (quoting New Jersey Study Comment to N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302, par. 1). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigationgreen2 sentences2006Noting the difference between the federal “vindication of statutory rights” test and an unconscionability analysis under state law, the California Supreme Court stated that the decisions following the former approach “address whether a federal statute impliedly limits arbitration, [and] are obviously not binding on this court when it decides whether class arbitration waivers are unconscionable under state law principles.” Ibid.; see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 , 60 n. 22 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding similarly that state unconscionability analysis, which is “based on the particula 2006Noting *103 the difference between the federal "vindication of statutory rights" test and an unconscionability analysis under state law, the California Supreme Court stated that the decisions following the former approach "address whether a federal statute impliedly limits arbitration, [and] are obviously not binding on this court when it decides whether class arbitration waivers are unconscionable under state law principles." Ibid.; see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F. 3d 25 , 60 n. 22 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding similarly that state unconscionability analysis, which is "based on the par | 1 | 1 |
cluster 794138green2 sentences2006Noting the difference between the federal “vindication of statutory rights” test and an unconscionability analysis under state law, the California Supreme Court stated that the decisions following the former approach “address whether a federal statute impliedly limits arbitration, [and] are obviously not binding on this court when it decides whether class arbitration waivers are unconscionable under state law principles.” Ibid.; see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 , 60 n. 22 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding similarly that state unconscionability analysis, which is “based on the particula 2006Noting *103 the difference between the federal "vindication of statutory rights" test and an unconscionability analysis under state law, the California Supreme Court stated that the decisions following the former approach "address whether a federal statute impliedly limits arbitration, [and] are obviously not binding on this court when it decides whether class arbitration waivers are unconscionable under state law principles." Ibid.; see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F. 3d 25 , 60 n. 22 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding similarly that state unconscionability analysis, which is "based on the par | 1 | 1 |
Fotomat Corp. of Fla. v. Chandagreen1 sentence2002Accord, Fotomat Corp. of Florida v. Chanda, 464 So. 2d 626 (Fla.App. 1985). [21] The option contract, prepared by Sitogum's representatives, does not indicate precisely when Sitogum would be obligated to tender the purchase price. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes
green
1 sentence2026Sitogum Holdings, Inc., 352 N.J. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
MetLife v. Washington Ave. Assoc.
green
1 sentence2021While the Court "agree[d] in today's competitive market that ordinarily such [rates] are part of the cost of doing business[,]" it nevertheless declined to impose an unconscionability standard, reasoning "[c]ourts are accustomed to dealing with the standard of reasonableness." Id. at 505 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
green
2 sentences2014Contracts of adhesion "invariably evidence some characteristics of procedural unconscionability," and therefore "require[] a careful fact-sensitive examination into substantive unconscionability." Muhammad, supra, 189 N.J. at 16 . 2014Contracts of adhesion "invariably evidence some characteristics of procedural unconscionability," and therefore "require[] a careful fact-sensitive examination into substantive unconscionability." Muhammad, supra, 189 N.J. at 16 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Matlack v. Arend
green
2 sentences2000New Jersey Study Comment 2 on N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302 ( citing Matlack v. Arend, 2 N.J.Super. 319 , 63 A. 2d 812 (1949); Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 575 , 111 A. 2d 425 (1955); S.G. 2000New Jersey Study Comment 2 on N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302 ( citing Matlack v. Arend, 2 N.J.Super. 319 , 63 A. 2d 812 (1949); Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 575 , 111 A. 2d 425 (1955); S.G. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kuzmiak v. Brookchester
green
2 sentences2000New Jersey Study Comment 2 on N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302 ( citing Matlack v. Arend, 2 N.J.Super. 319 , 63 A. 2d 812 (1949); Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 575 , 111 A. 2d 425 (1955); S.G. 2000New Jersey Study Comment 2 on N.J.S.A. 12A:2-302 ( citing Matlack v. Arend, 2 N.J.Super. 319 , 63 A. 2d 812 (1949); Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 575 , 111 A. 2d 425 (1955); S.G. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
STATE BY HIGHWAY COMM'R v. Gallant
green
1 sentence1988Consequently, I would affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim on the Supreme Court authority of State v. Gallant, supra , reverse the dismissal of the cross-claim and third-party complaint against Amerada Hess, and remand for trial on the shared-compensation issue after a hearing on the unconscionability of the waiver clause in the lease. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Shell Oil Co. v. Marinello
green
1 sentence1980The standard of conduct contemplated by the unconscionability clause is good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair dealing. [ Kugler v. Romain, 58 N.J. 522, 543-44 (1971)] The doctrine of unconscionability comes into play when two factors coincide: "grossly disproportionate bargaining power" between the parties which has in fact led to "grossly unfair contractual provisions." Shell Oil Co. v. Marinello, supra 63 N.J. at 408 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Monsanto Co. v. Alden Leeds, Inc.
green
1 sentence1980Assuming that, at least for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment, defendant could show that the bargaining positions of plaintiff and the Livesays were grossly disproportionate in the plaintiff's favor, that alone is not "the decisive consideration." Monsanto Co. v. Alden Leeds, Inc., *480 supra, 130 N.J. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Schiff v. Schiff
green
1 sentence1976There has been a substantial change in circumstances which would warrant a modification of a judgment, but the change would probably not reach the unconscionability test mandated by Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Schiff v. Schiff
green
1 sentence1976Super. 546 (App. Div. 1971), certif. den. 60 N.J. 139 (1972). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.