Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The court, upon finding as a matter of law that a contract or contract clause was unconscionable at the time the contract was made, may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or limit the application of any unconscionable clause in order to avoid an unconscionable result.

(2) Whenever it is claimed, or appears to the court, that a contract or any contract clause is or may be unconscionable, the parties, in order to aid the court in making the determination, shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to:

(a) The commercial setting of the negotiations;

(b) Whether a party has knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the other party reasonably to protect his or her interests by reason of physical or mental infirmity, illiteracy, or inability to understand the language of the agreement or similar factors;

(d) If a sale, any gross disparity at the time of contracting between the amount charged for the real property and the value of the real property measured by the price at which similar real property was readily obtainable in similar transactions, but a disparity between the contract price and the value of the real property measured by the price at which similar real property was readily obtainable in similar transactions does not, of itself, render the contract unconscionable.

[1989 c 43 s 1-111.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2004). “) For contracts concerning leases, sales, real property, and retail installments, our legislature has adopted the Restatement position directing that in cases where these contracts are found to contain an unconscionable provision, courts may “enforce the remainder of the .”

Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “¶22 But the declaration itself is not a contract under RCW 64.34.080. It is a document that unilaterally creates a type of real property.”

Marina Cove Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Isabella Estates, 34 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “See RCW 64.34.080, .090, .450. Davis, 137 Wn.”

Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2005). “) For contracts concerning leases, sales, real property, and retail installments, our legislature has adopted the Restatement position directing that in cases where these contracts are found to contain an unconscionable provision, courts may "enforce the remainder of the .”

Ass'n v. Isabella Estates, 34 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “450; and (c) shall be deemed to be a part of the basis of the bargain between the Owner and the Builder....”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.080(2) — 1 case

Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “¶22 But the declaration itself is not a contract under RCW 64.34.080. It is a document that unilaterally creates a type of real property.”

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.