W. Va. Code § 36B-1-111
Unconscionable agreement or term of contract
West Virginia · West Virginia Code Chapter 36B — Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act · Status: effective
Cite this
- Citation
- W. Va. Code § 36B-1-111, Unconscionable agreement or term of contract, West Virginia, version 1 as recorded 2026-10-03, yourstate.us, https://yourstate.us/provision/2385114
- Permanent ID
ys:prov:2385114@1- SHA-256
b7c512ee12b1bf1b77cb5c4fe1152c190767b6977cb73763e1d01655e2b1447a
The hash is SHA-256 of this version's text, with every run of whitespace collapsed to a single space and the ends trimmed. The ID always leads back here, and checking it says whether the text you cited is still the current version.
Full text
(a) 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.
(b) 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, must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to:
(1) The commercial setting of the negotiations;
(2) Whether a party has knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the other party reasonably to protect his interests by reason of physical or mental infirmity, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of the agreement, or similar factors;
(3) The effect and purpose of the contract or clause; and
(4) If a sale, any gross disparity, at the time of contracting, between the amount charged for the property and the value of that property measured by the price at which similar property was readily obtainable in similar transactions. A disparity between the contract price and the value of the property measured by the price at which similar property was readily obtainable in similar transactions does not, of itself, render the contract unconscionable.