Cited by

Clark v. Renaissance W., L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2013).

See, –53, ¶¶ 42–49 (App. 2005); Clark v. Renaissance W., LLC, –13, ¶¶ 8–13 (App. 2013); Gullett, 241 Ariz. at 535–40, 9 DUNCAN, et al v. PUBLIC STORAGE Opinion of the Court ¶¶ 7–25; Falcone Bros. & Assocs., ¶ 21 (App. 2016).

¶10 Substantive unconscionability concerns the actual terms of the contract and whether they are “overly oppressive or unduly harsh to one of the parties.” Clark v. Renaissance W., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2013).

Substantive unconscionability occurs where a contract has ‘terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party, an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain, and significant cost-price disparity.’” -72, ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (quoting Maxwell, 184 Ariz. at 89, and citing Clark v. Renaissance W., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2013)).

Under Arizona law, a contract is procedurally unconscionable when “unfair surprise, fine print clauses, mistakes or ignorance of important facts or other things [meant that] bargaining did not proceed as it should.” Duenas, 236 Ariz. at 135, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (quoting Clark v. Renaissance W., L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2013)).

“Procedural unconscionability addresses the fairness of the bargaining process,” including such concerns as “ ‘unfair surprise,’ fine print clauses, mistakes or ignorance of important facts or other things that mean bargaining did not proceed as it should.” Dueñas, , 336 P.3d at 768 , quoting Clark v. Renaissance W., L.L.C.

Duenas, 236 Ariz. at 135, ¶ 8 (quoting Clark v. Renaissance W., L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2013)).

Clark v. Renaissance W., LLC

We will defer to the trial court’s assessment of the phlebotomist’s credibility, however, because it is “in the best position to make that determination.” ¶ 22, see also Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, ¶ 19, (providing that this Court defers to the trial court’s factual findings absent a clear abuse of discretion).

We defer to the trial court’s factual findings absent clear error, Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, , 515 ¶ 21, but review de novo the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions, , 176 ¶ 6

We defer to the trial court’s factual findings absent clear error, Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, ¶ 21, but review de novo the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions, ¶ 6

A. Procedural Unconscionability ¶ 8 “Procedural unconscionability addresses the fairness of the bargaining process, which ‘is concerned with “unfair surprise,” fine print clauses, mistakes or ignorance of important facts or other things that mean bargaining did not proceed as it should.’” Clark v. Renaissance West, L.L.C., ¶ 8 , (citation omitted).