contract without the unconscionable clause (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

contract without the unconscionable clause in Mississippi

9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co.green
miss · 1998 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010
2 sentences

2010Unconscionability has been defined also as "`an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.'" Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d 1202, 1207 (Miss.1998).

2008Unconscionability has been defined also as “‘an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.’” Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So. 2d 1202, 1207 (Miss. 1998).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Bank of Indiana, National Ass'n v. Holyfield green
mssd · 1979
2 sentences

2011Ass’n v.] Holyfield, 476 F.Supp. 104 ,] 110 [ (S.D.Miss.1979) ]. [[Image here]] “The law of Mississippi imposes an obligation of good faith and fundamental fairness 9 in the performance of every contract!.] [T]his requirement is so pronounced that courts have the power to refuse to enforce any contract in order to avoid an unconscionable result.” Section 75-2-302 of the Mississippi Code provides: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract to have been unconscionable it may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause

2009Our courts may remedy unconscionable agreements as follows: “The law of Mississippi imposes an obligation of good faith and fundamental fairness in the performance of every contract ... this requirement is so pronounced that courts have the power to refuse to enforce any contract ... in order to avoid an unconscionable result.” Section 75-2-302 of the Mississippi Code provides: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract to have been unconscionable ... [it] may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may s

52004–2011
Covenant Health & Rehabilitation of Picayune, LP v. Estate of Moulds Ex Rel. Braddock green
miss · 2009
2 sentences

2014Under Mississippi Code Section 75-2-302, which has been applied to contracts other than for sale of goods, when a contract is found unconscionable, this 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.” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-302 (Rev.2002); Estate of Moulds, 14 So.3d at 700 . ¶ 15.

2010Our courts may remedy unconscionable agreements as follows: "The law of Mississippi imposes an obligation of good faith and fundamental fairness in the performance of every contract ... this requirement is so pronounced that courts have the power to refuse to enforce any contract ... in *1035 order to avoid an unconscionable result." Section 75-2-302 of the Mississippi Code provides: "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract to have been unconscionable... [it] may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it

42008–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-302 (7) USC § 9u.s.c.1 (4) USC § 9u.s.c.2 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 81 (1988–2026) MS 9 (2004–2014) NM 6 (2012–2017) WV 5 (1984–2025) NY 5 (1966–1984) NJ 3 (1971–2026) WA 3 (1982–2009) SC 2 (2022–2023) MO 2 (2006–2010) GA 2 (1974–2024) PA 2 (1977–2007) CT 2 (1979–1993) MI 2 (1978–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check