unconscionability doctrine in Wisconsin

2023STAT. § 425.102 “are in line with the common law doctrine of unconscionability, which is a defense to contract enforcement, not an affirmative claim available 33 No. 2022AP746 outside a contract-enforcement or breach-of-contract action.” Duncan, 400 Wis. 2d 1, ¶27 (citing Rosecky v. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, ¶57 , 349 Wis. 2d 84 , 833 N.W.2d 634 , which identifies common law unconscionability as a “defense”).

2023STAT. § 425.102 “are in line with the common law doctrine of unconscionability, which is a defense to contract enforcement, not an affirmative claim available 33 No. 2022AP746 outside a contract-enforcement or breach-of-contract action.” Duncan, 400 Wis. 2d 1, ¶27 (citing Rosecky v. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, ¶57 , 349 Wis. 2d 84 , 833 N.W.2d 634 , which identifies common law unconscionability as a “defense”).

2025The court then provided Rent-A-Center as an example of an insufficient challenge to the delegation provision, given that the former employee’s unconscionability challenge in that case “went to the enforceability of the parties’ arbitration agreement as a whole— but not specifically to the enforceability of the delegation [provision].” Attix, 35 F.4th at 1304-05; see also supra ¶¶50-51.

2025The Eleventh Circuit also provided an example of a sufficient challenge to the delegation provision in which a borrower’s argument that the chosen arbitral forum did not exist applied equally to both the arbitration agreement and its delegation provision, given that “there was no one to whom the parties could delegate their threshold arbitrability issues.” Attix, 35 F.4th at 1305-06 (citing Parm v. National Bank of Cal., 835 F.3d 1332 -35 (11th Cir. 2016)). ¶61 The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the borrower’s argument regarding the Dodd-Frank Act was not about the enforceability of the deleg

2023STAT. § 425.107 because the plaintiff brought it in a separate lawsuit, and not “in response to ‘actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor.’” Duncan, 400 Wis. 2d 1, ¶27 (quoting WIS.

2023STAT. § 425.102 “are in line with the common law doctrine of unconscionability, which is a defense to contract enforcement, not an affirmative claim available 33 No. 2022AP746 outside a contract-enforcement or breach-of-contract action.” Duncan, 400 Wis. 2d 1, ¶27 (citing Rosecky v. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, ¶57 , 349 Wis. 2d 84 , 833 N.W.2d 634 , which identifies common law unconscionability as a “defense”).

2019See Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶25, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (whether the facts found by the circuit court render a contract provision unconscionable is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo). ¶16 "A contract is unconscionable when no decent, fair-minded person would view the result of its enforcement without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice." Foursquare Props.

2019See Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶25, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (whether the facts found by the circuit court render a contract provision unconscionable is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo). ¶16 "A contract is unconscionable when no decent, fair-minded person would view the result of its enforcement without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice." Foursquare Props.

2018See Deminsky , 259 Wis. 2d 587 , ¶¶ 26-27, 657 N.W.2d 411 ; see also Yauger v. Skiing Enters., Inc. , 206 Wis. 2d 76 , 86-87, 557 N.W.2d 60 (1996). ¶ 65 An unconscionability doctrine is an "important public policy" identified by the Bush court.

2018See Deminsky , 259 Wis. 2d 587 , ¶¶ 26-27, 657 N.W.2d 411 ; see also Yauger v. Skiing Enters., Inc. , 206 Wis. 2d 76 , 86-87, 557 N.W.2d 60 (1996). ¶ 65 An unconscionability doctrine is an "important public policy" identified by the Bush court.

2018See Deminsky , 259 Wis. 2d 587 , ¶¶ 26-27, 657 N.W.2d 411 ; see also Yauger v. Skiing Enters., Inc. , 206 Wis. 2d 76 , 86-87, 557 N.W.2d 60 (1996). ¶ 65 An unconscionability doctrine is an "important public policy" identified by the Bush court.

2018See Deminsky , 259 Wis. 2d 587 , ¶¶ 26-27, 657 N.W.2d 411 ; see also Yauger v. Skiing Enters., Inc. , 206 Wis. 2d 76 , 86-87, 557 N.W.2d 60 (1996). ¶ 65 An unconscionability doctrine is an "important public policy" identified by the Bush court.