Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 402.302 (2026)

Unconscionable contract or clause

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

402.302402.302 Unconscionable contract or clause.

402.302(1)(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.

402.302(2)(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.

402.302 AnnotationUnconscionability requires an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party, together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other. To find unconscionability requires a certain quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability bears on a meeting of the minds, while substantive unconscionability pertains to the reasonableness of the contract terms themselves. Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics Machinery, 2003 WI 15, 259 Wis. 2d 587, 657 N.W.2d 411, 01-0242.

402.302 AnnotationDiscussing the conspicuousness necessary for an effective warranty disclaimer. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc., 932 F.2d 681 (1991).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53 (Wis. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 12× “All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated.”

Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics Mach., 2003 WI 15 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 6× “Image argues that the terms of the agreement are commercially unreasonable, that Image lacked notice of the term, and that the term is inconspicuous.”

Aul v. Golden Rule Ins., 2007 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “They assert that under Wis. Stat. § 402.302 (1), 5 we may refuse to enforce any part of the contract we find unconscionable.”

Badger Bearing Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 444 F. Supp. 919 (E.D. Wis. 1977). · cites it 2× “When a party claims that a contract or clause is unconscionable, Wis. Stat. § 402.302 requires that the parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the commercial setting, purpose and effect of the allegedly unconscionable clause to aid the court in…”

Disc. Fabric House of Racine, Inc. v. Wisconsin Tel. Co., 334 N.W.2d 922 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Sec. 402.302, Stats., Official U.C.C. Comment.”

In re First Phoenix-Weston, LLC, 575 B.R. 828 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2017). · cites it 2× “unconscionability has been codified in Wis. Stat. § 402.302 , which states that under the Wisconsin U.”

Matter of J & L Transp., Inc., 62 B.R. 418 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986). · cites it 6× “J & L argues that the combined effect of clauses 10 and 17 render option “c” unconscionable because, literally read, option “c” would require J & L to pay the total of all unpaid rents plus the market value of the trailers prior to the loss plus, under clause 17, to restore the…”

Naparala v. Pella Corp., 106 F. Supp. 3d 715 (D.S.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. Ann. § 402.302 (1). “To be declared invalid as unconscionable, a contract or contract provision must be determined to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.”

Chapiewsky v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 297 F. Supp. 33 (W.D. Wis. 1968). “In addition, eases involving unconscionability under 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (§ 402.302, Wis. Stats.) will be pertinent to the inquiry.”

Fitzgerald v. Wells Fargo & Co. (E.D. Wis. 2025). · cites it 10× “) In Wisconsin, that section is codified as Wis. Stat. §402.302 , as part of Wisconsin’s version of Article 2 of the U.”

Wilson v. Hanson Law Grp., 927 N.W.2d 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “The circuit court emphasized that Wilson ended up being paid very little. The circuit court calculated that Wilson was effectively paid $8.”

Carando Gourmet Frozen Foods Corp. v. Axis Automation, LLC (D. Mass. 2020). “1978) (citing Wis. Stat. § 402.302 ). A term is “conspicuous” when it is “so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it.”

— Wis. Stat. § 402.302(1) — 2 cases

Aul v. Golden Rule Ins., 2007 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “They assert that under Wis. Stat. § 402.302 (1), 5 we may refuse to enforce any part of the contract we find unconscionable.”

Matter of J & L Transp., Inc., 62 B.R. 418 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986). “J & L argues that the combined effect of clauses 10 and 17 render option “c” unconscionable because, literally read, option “c” would require J & L to pay the total of all unpaid rents plus the market value of the trailers prior to the loss plus, under clause 17, to restore the…”

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.