unconscionability doctrine in Iowa

1984As was said in C & J Fertilizer: “Standardized contracts ... drafted by powerful commercial units and put before individuals on the ‘accept this or get nothing’ basis, are carefully scrutinized by the courts for the purpose of avoiding enforcement of ‘unconscionable’ clauses.” 227 N.W.2d at 180 (quoting 6A A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1376 at 21 (1963)).

1979It is made applicable to U.C.C. cases by § 554.2302, The Code, and to adhesion contracts by C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., 227 N.W.2d 169, 179-81 (Iowa 1975).

2023See id. (“Temporal considerations can in some instances support a finding of unconscionability.”).

2023See id. at 518 (“Equitable principles will not permit a party to eschew an opportunity to consult counsel as to the legal effect of a proposed contract, execute the contract, and then challenge the enforceability of the agreement on the ground she did not have adequate legal advice.”); In re Est. of Kloster, No. 20-1245, 2021 WL 3076546 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July, 21, 2021) (denying claim of procedural unconscionability based on premarital agreement that 4 Troy’s testimony on this matter is limited: Q.

2020Id. at 352, 131 S. Ct. at 1753.

2013See C & J Vantage, 795 N.W.2d at 81 (rejecting an unconscionability claim where “[t]here is no evidence of unequal bargaining power between the parties or a lack of understanding on the part of Lake MacBride.”); see also Andersons, 166 F.3d at 324 (rejecting a procedural unconscionability argument, in part, because “Horton Farms has failed to present evidence that it searched for other alternatives and that there were none”).

2013See C & J Vantage, 795 N.W.2d at 81 (rejecting an unconscionability claim where “[t]here is no evidence of unequal bargaining power between the parties or a lack of understanding on the part of Lake MacBride.”); see also Andersons, 166 F.3d at 324 (rejecting a procedural unconscionability argument, in part, because “Horton Farms has failed to present evidence that it searched for other alternatives and that there were none”).

1985After discussing the doctrine of unconscionability in Smith v. Harrison, 325 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1982), we stated: A bargain is unconscionable “if it is ‘such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’ ” Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 , 10 S.Ct. 134, 136 , 33 L.Ed. 393, 396 (1889)).

1985After discussing the doctrine of unconscionability in Smith v. Harrison, 325 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1982), we stated: A bargain is unconscionable “if it is ‘such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’ ” Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 , 10 S.Ct. 134, 136 , 33 L.Ed. 393, 396 (1889)).

1985After discussing the doctrine of unconscionability in Smith v. Harrison, 325 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1982), we stated: A bargain is unconscionable “if it is ‘such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’ ” Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 , 10 S.Ct. 134, 136 , 33 L.Ed. 393, 396 (1889)).

1985After discussing the doctrine of unconscionability in Smith v. Harrison, 325 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1982), we stated: A bargain is unconscionable “if it is ‘such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’ ” Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 , 10 S.Ct. 134, 136 , 33 L.Ed. 393, 396 (1889)).