ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5

810 ILCS 5/2-302

Unconscionable contract or clause

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-302) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-302)
    Sec. 2-302. Unconscionable contract or clause.
    (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the 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.
    (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · leading case: Razor v. Hyundai Motor America
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Razor v. Hyundai Motor America (2006) ill “However, this does not mean that the exclusion of consequential damages will necessarily be upheld.”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp. (2008) ilnd “Unconscionability The plaintiffs request a full hearing on the issue of unconscionability pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/2-302(2), which provides that: When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded…”
Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC v. Millenium Holding Group, Inc. (2008) ilnd “Under Illinois law determining whether a contractual clause is unconscionable is a matter of law for judicial decision (810 ILCS 5/2-302(1)). For that purpose CogniTest Corp.”
Naranjo v. Carroll (2023) illappct “§§ 3617 and 12203 (the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities Acts), and 810 ILCS 5/2-302 (West 2020) (the unconscionable Contract Clause).”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-302(1) — 2 cases
Razor v. Hyundai Motor America (2006) ill “However, this does not mean that the exclusion of consequential damages will necessarily be upheld.”
Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC v. Millenium Holding Group, Inc. (2008) ilnd “Under Illinois law determining whether a contractual clause is unconscionable is a matter of law for judicial decision (810 ILCS 5/2-302(1)). For that purpose CogniTest Corp.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-302(2) — 1 case
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp. (2008) ilnd “Unconscionability The plaintiffs request a full hearing on the issue of unconscionability pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/2-302(2), which provides that: When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.