Unconscionability
| Contract law |
|---|
| Formation |
| Vitiating factors & defences |
| Terms & interpretation |
| Performance & breach |
| Remedies |
| Quasi-contractual obligations |
| Rights of third parties |
| Duties of parties |
|
| Dispute resolution |
| By jurisdiction |
|
| Notes |
|
| Equity and trusts |
|---|
| History and sources |
| Equitable doctrines |
| Defences |
| Equitable remedies |
| Equitable interests |
|
For equitable interests arising in property law, see Property law |
| Types of Trusts |
| Formation and governance of trusts |
| Related topics |
|
Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.