Section 70-24-202

Citation: Section 70-24-202
Parent Document: Summers v. Crestview Apartments, 2010 MT 164 (2010)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2010-07-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889353/summers-v-crestview-apartments/ ↗

Full Text

696 chars

¶54 The Court also concludes that, because “[a] more equitable result” could have been pursued by Crestview, the acceleration clause is unconscionable, a conclusion which enables the Court to refuse to enforce it. Opinion, ¶ 28. To be unconscionable, a contractual term must be “such that the weaker bargaining party had no meaningful choice regarding acceptance of the provisions” and “the contractual terms are unreasonably favorable to the drafter, usually the party with superior bargaining power.” Arrowhead Sch. Dist. No. 75, ¶ 48 (citing Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, 1999 MT 63, ¶¶ 27-31, 293 Mont. 512, 977 P.2d 989) (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).

Other Sections in This Document (530)

Full Text