58-2544.
Finding of unconscionability; remedies; evidence.
(a) If the court, as a matter of law, finds: (1) A rental agreement or any provision thereof was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result; or
(2) a settlement in which a party waives or agrees to forego a claim or right under this act or under a rental agreement was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the settlement, enforce the remainder of the settlement without the unconscionable provision or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid any unconscionable result.
(b) If unconscionability is put into issue by a party or by the court upon its own motion, the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the setting, purpose and effect of the rental agreement or settlement to aid the court in making the determination.
History:
L. 1975, ch. 290, § 5; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Chelsea Plaza Homes, Inc. v. Moore, 601 P.2d 1100 (Kan. 1979).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 58-2544 of the RLTA provides: “(d) If the court, as a matter of law, finds: (1) A rental agreement or any provision thereof .”
Est. of Link v. Wirtz, 638 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “50-627, Consumer Protection Act; K.S.A. 58-2544, Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; and most importantly, K.”
Clark v. Walker, 590 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1979).
“While the act allows a landlord and tenant to negotiate an individualized lease, it prohibits the enforcement of unconscionable provisions (K.S.A. 58-2544), supplies the basic terms in the absence of an agreement (K.”
Willman v. Ewen, 634 P.2d 1061 (Kan. 1981).
· cites it 2× “" The doctrine was further extended by the enactment of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (K.”
Heckard v. Martin, 958 P.2d 665 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
“See K.S.A. 58-2544. Heckard’s problem with this issue is that he did not ask for any late charges or other fees which might be addressed under the written agreement.”
Hill City Hous. Auth. v. Nevins (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“Among other things, the Act prohibits the enforcement of unconscionable provisions, K.S.A. 58-2544, supplies default terms in the absence of an agreement, K.”
Schutt v. Foster (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“" K.S.A. 58-2544(a)(1). A contract provision is unconscionable when it is "'so outrageous and unfair in its wording or application that it shocks the conscience or offends the sensibilities of the court, or is against public policy.”
— K.S.A. § 58-2544(a)(1) — 1 case
Schutt v. Foster (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“" K.S.A. 58-2544(a)(1). A contract provision is unconscionable when it is "'so outrageous and unfair in its wording or application that it shocks the conscience or offends the sensibilities of the court, or is against public policy.”
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.