Maxwell v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., Inc
In Maxwell v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., Inc., 184 Ariz. 82, 907 P.2d 51 (1995), the Arizona Supreme Court held that factors indicating procedural or bargaining unconscionability include:
Those factors bearing upon . . . the real and voluntary meeting of the minds of the contracting party: age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience, relative bargaining power, who drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, whether alterations in the printed terms were possible . . . .Id. at 89, 907 P.2d at 58.
Factors "indicative of substantive unconscionability are contract terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party," as well as "an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain . . . ." Id.
Maxwell held that, under Arizona's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, a claim of unconscionability can be established by a showing of substantive unconscionability alone, but did not decide if procedural unconscionability alone was sufficient. 184 Ariz. at 90, 907 P.2d at 59.