Ind. Code » Title 26
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 26-1-2-302 (2025)

Unconscionable contract or clause

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 302. (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.

Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-302.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1981–2009 · leading case: Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2001). · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 26-1-2-302 (1993). [6] These facial distinctions between §§ 2-719(2) and (3) suggest a legislative intent that the provisions should function independently of one another.”
Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 434 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “Yet, section 26-1-2-302 expressly applies to “any clause of the contract,” and neither section 2-316 nor 2-719 *952 affirmatively states that limitations meeting its requirements are immune from section 2-302.”
Van Bibber v. Norris, 419 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 2× “— (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…”
Sho-Pro of Indiana, Inc. v. Brown, 585 N.E.2d 1357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code 26-1-2-302 provides in relevant part: *1361 (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…”
Gen. Bargain Ctr. v. Am. Alarm Co., 430 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “) The applicability of the UCC to this problem was indicated by the Supreme Court in Weaver, supra, when it relied upon Ind. Code 26-1-2-302 in defining an unconscionable contract.”
Sanco, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 579 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Ind. 1984). “See Ind.Code 26-1-2-302 and Ind. Code 26-1-2-719(3) concerning unconscionable clauses and contracts, and Ind.”
Maxon Corp. v. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “1974) states: "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…”
Bowlers Country Club, Inc. v. Royal Links USA, Inc., 846 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “at 10-11 (citing Ind.Code § 26-1-2-302(2) and Ind.Code § 26-1-2.”
Leaf Funding, Inc. v. Brogan Pharm., Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 844 (N.D. Ind. 2009). · cites it 2× “1991) (upholding a contractual prejudgment interest rate of 18% because the evidence did not show that the rate was unconscionable at the time it was agreed upon under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-302); Weisman v. Hopf-Himsel, Inc.”
Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. 1993). “Code § 26-1-2-302 (1). The party raising the issue bears the burden of proof.”
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-302(1): 2 cases
Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 434 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “Yet, section 26-1-2-302 expressly applies to “any clause of the contract,” and neither section 2-316 nor 2-719 *952 affirmatively states that limitations meeting its requirements are immune from section 2-302.”
Maxon Corp. v. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “1974) states: "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…”
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-302(2): 1 case
Bowlers Country Club, Inc. v. Royal Links USA, Inc., 846 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “at 10-11 (citing Ind.Code § 26-1-2-302(2) and Ind.Code § 26-1-2.”
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.