Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2302 (2026)

Unconscionable contract or clause.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2302 Unconscionable contract or clause.

Sec. 2302.

    (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.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Davis v. Lafontaine Motors, Inc, 719 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Lafontaine Motors, Inc, 719 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “2302, which provides in pertinent part: (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 reminder of the contract without…”
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Ind. 2001). · cites it 2× “Section 2-302(1) ( Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2302 (1); Tenn.Code Ann.”
Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Almont Gravel, Inc., 412 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also notes that the second lease was a standard financing lease commonly used and commercially accepted as a method of financing and that the court’s decision jeopardizes the viability of standard financing leases which play a significant role in national commerce.”
Bailey Farms, Inc. v. Nor-Am Chem. Co., 27 F.3d 188 (6th Cir. 1994). “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2302 . Specifically, plaintiff claims that the disclaimer is one-sided and oppressive.”
Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc., 166 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “, to Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2302 )). The issue is determined based on the facts and circumstances that existed when the contract was made, not those extant at the time of the suit.”
Mallory v. Conida Warehouses, Inc, 350 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The trial court's finding that limiting the remedy to the purchase price of the seed was unconscionable under MCL 440.2302; MSA 19.2302 was not clearly erroneous.”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Practice Commentary to UCC § 2-302, MCL 440.2302; MSA 19.2302. In this case, where the defect could not be discovered until after the seed was planted, the remedy prescribed in the limitation of liability clause is an illusory one which represents no remedy at all in that it…”
Schigur v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 264 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “, dissenting): "I would `enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause'; [MCLA 440.2302(1); MSA *649 19.2302(1)][ [2] ] i.”
Bob v. Holmes, 259 N.W.2d 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “Having decided to reverse on the basis of defendants’ presentation of material issues of fact, we would only note, though MCLA 440.2302; MSA 19.2302 may not strictly apply under these purported "leases”, authority does require the trial court to look into the commercial setting,…”
Stenke v. Masland Dev. Co., 394 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “The doctrine was adopted by our Legislature in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2302; MSA 19.2302, and continues to apply to contracts outside the scope of the Uniform Commercial Code as well.”
Krupp Pm Eng'g, Inc v. Honeywell, Inc, 530 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “” Subsection 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc) Comment accompanying that statute states: The present section is addressed to the court, and the decision is to be made by it.”
Gianni Sport Ltd v. Gantos, Inc, 391 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 440.2302; MSA 19.2302. The Official UCC Comment to this section describes the basic test as whether, in the light of the general commercial background and commercial needs of the particular trade, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2302(1): 3 cases
Schigur v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 264 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “, dissenting): "I would `enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause'; [MCLA 440.2302(1); MSA *649 19.2302(1)][ [2] ] i.”
Am. Fid. Fire Ins. v. Williams, 263 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
White Acres LLC v. Shur-Green Farms LLC, No. 354175 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2022).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2302(2): 1 case
Reed v. Kaydon Eng'g Corp., 196 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
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.