Unconscionability. In any action under this chapter to revoke or enforce a premarital agreement the issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.
Unconscionability. An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement must be decided by the court as a matter of law. [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).] SECTION HISTORY PL 1995, c. 694, §B2 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).
Unconscionability. An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement must be decided by the court as a matter of law. [PL 0000, x. 000, Xx. X, §0 (NEW); PL 0000, x. 000, Xx. X, §0 (AFF).] SECTION XXXXXXX XX 0000, x. 000, §X0 (XXX). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). The State of Maine claims a copyright in its codified statutes. If you intend to republish this material, we require that you include the following disclaimer in your publication: All copyrights and other rights to statutory text are reserved by the State of Maine. The text included in this publication reflects changes made through the Second Regular Session of the 129th Maine Legislature and is current through October 1, 2020. The text is subject to change without notice. It is a version that has not been officially certified by the Secretary of State. Refer to the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated and supplements for certified text. The Office of the Revisor of Statutes also requests that you send us one copy of any statutory publication you may produce. Our goal is not to restrict publishing activity, but to keep track of who is publishing what, to identify any needless duplication and to preserve the State's copyright rights.
Unconscionability. If any clause of this Agreement is held unconscionable by any court of competent jurisdiction, arbitration panel, or other official finder of fact, the clause in question shall be modified to eliminate the unconscionable element and as so modified, the clause shall be binding on the parties. The remaining provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected by the modification of any unconscionable clause.
Unconscionability. (Id. at p. [131 S.Ct. at p. 1747].) The FAA preempts such ―generally applicable contract defenses‖ if they ―stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA‘s objectives.‖ (Id. at p. [131 S.Ct. at p. 1748].) The Discover Bank rule stands as such an obstacle for two reasons. First, it contravenes the FAA‘s ― ‗principal purpose,‘ ‖ which ―is to ‗ensur[e] that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms.‘ [Citations.]‖ (Id. at
Unconscionability. E. We express no opinion herein with respect to subsection (i) in paragraph 1 above with respect to the Pledge Agreement.
Unconscionability. The black letter law of unconscionability states that a contract that results from an unfair bargaining process (procedural unconscio- nability) that then leads to an unfair result (substantive unconscio- nability) can be unenforceable against the disadvantaged party.76 Unconscionability is a common law limit on contract drafters and therefore varies by state, but most states use a sliding scale77— the more unconscionable one category is, the less is required in
Unconscionability. Defendants bring claims against Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants for unconscionability based on the imposition of “excessive fees and costs,” “overly onerous loan terms” and violations of “the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Generally speaking, “a contract is unenforceable if its terms are manifestly unfair or oppressive, and are dictated by a dominant party.” Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxx, 241 N.J. Super. 222, 230 (App. Div. 1990). A party raising a claim of unconscionability has the burden of showing “some over-reaching or imposition resulting from a bargaining disparity between the parties, or such patent unfairness in the terms of the contract that no reasonable man not acting under compulsion or out of necessity would accept them.” Rotwein v. Gen. Accident Group, 103 N.J. Super. 406, 418 (Law Div. 1968). Hence, a party needs to demonstrate both procedural unconscionability which identifies unfairness in the formation of the contract and substantive unconscionability which addresses disproportionate contract terms. Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J. Super. 555, 564 (Ch. Div. 2002). Procedural unconscionability “can include a variety of inadequacies, such as age, literacy, lack of sophistication, hidden or unduly complex contract terms, bargaining tactics, and the particular setting existing during the contract formation process. Id. To establish substantive unconscionability, a party must show the “exchange of obligations so one-sided as to shock the court’s conscience.” Id. at 565. Here, Defendants have not satisfied their burden of showing unconscionability in the execution of their mortgage contract. In terms of procedural unconscionability, Defendants were provided with all the necessary documentation and information regarding their loan at the closing and all such terms, if read, were clear on the face of such documents. Further, Defendants were given the opportunity to have counsel present during the execution of these documents and to ask questions of the closing agent. Defendants were also able to dictate the location and setting of the loan closing. Hence, there is no evidence of overreaching or manipulation in the formation of this contract. Additionally, there is no evidence of substantive unconscionability as the terms of the agreement were not so one-sided or unfair to shock the conscious of the court particularly in light of the fact that such terms were actually requested by the Defendants in writing prior to the closing and Def...
Unconscionability. E. We express no opinion herein with respect to subsection (i) in paragraph 1 above with respect to the Pledge Agreement. F. This letter speaks only as of the date hereof and is limited to present statutes, regulations and administrative and judicial interpretation. We undertake no responsibility to update or supplement this letter after the date hereof. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Credit Partners L.P. April 30, 2007 Page 8 This letter has been delivered solely for the benefit of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders pursuant to Section 4.01 of the Credit Agreement thereto and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity or for any other purpose without our express written permission; provided that this opinion may be furnished to bank regulatory authorities or Persons that become an Agent or Lender in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Documents or as required by any Governmental Authority or pursuant to the legal process. We expressly disclaim any duty to update this letter in the future in the event there are any changes in relevant fact or law that may change or otherwise affect any of the opinions or confirmations expressed herein. Very truly yours, By: Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, a Partner Schedule 1 FILING OFFICE Name of Debtor UCC Filing Office Delta Technology, LLC Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of any county in the State of Georgia ASA Holdings, Inc. Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of any county in the State of Georgia Schedule 2 CERTIFICATES OF GOOD STANDING FOR THE OPINION PARTIES State of Issuance of Good Date of Good Standing Standing Certificate Certificate Delta Technology, LLC Georgia 04/16/2007 ASA Holdings, Inc. Georgia 04/16/2007 Exhibit A SUPPORTING CERTIFICATE The undersigned, E. Xxxx Xxxxxx, in his capacity as Secretary of Delta Technology, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (the “Opinion Party”), has executed this Certificate in connection with the legal opinion (the “Opinion”) to be rendered by Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx LLP pursuant to Section 4.01 of that certain Second Lien Term Loan And Guaranty Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2007, among Delta Air Lines, Inc., the Guarantors signatory to the Credit Agreement, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Credit Partners L.P., for itself, as Lender, as administrative agent (in such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”) and collateral agent (in such capacity, the “Collateral Agent”) for the Lenders, and the other Lenders signatory thereto from time to time (the “Credit Agreement”). The undersig...
Unconscionability. (a) With respect to a consumer credit sale, if the court finds the agreement or any clause of the agreement to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, or it may enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.
