The doctrine of unconscionability used to be used by courts of equity to set aside contracts where one of the parties was manifestly disabled in the largest sense of that phrase. What I mean is a 79 year old widow being dupped into mortgaging her house, an intellectually-challenged farmer trading his farm for a manifestly inferior property. These are the kinds of cases that the courts used to set aside. With the latest Supreme Court of Canada case, (Uber Technologies v. Heller) the idea of what is an ‘unconscionable’ transaction has now been greatly expanded – far beyond the traditional idea of the weak-willed 79 year old widow. Many contracts are now subject to being set aside as unconscionable.
Here are some of my comment on Uber v. Heller:
Unconscionability: the latest SCC case
Unconscionability in Contract: What is really wrong with Uber v. Heller?
Unconscionability: the SCC mis-use of its own unconscionability precedents
