Cited by

¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000) (noting arguments not raised in opening brief are waived and cannot be raised for first time in reply brief).

¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000) (ruling party waives argument by failing to raise it in opening brief).

¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000); ARCAP 13(c).

Having settled the case, Stucky cannot relitigate it here, see Emmons, at ¶ 18, and she has not offered clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake or fraud, ¶ 7 (App. 2000).

¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000) (a party’s failure to raise an argument in its opening brief waives the issue).

¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000) (noting arguments not raised in opening brief are waived and cannot be raised for the first time in reply brief).

App. P. 13(a)(6)-(7); n.3 (App. 2000) (argument not raised in opening brief waived).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 11, n.3 (App. 2000) (a party waives an argument it fails to raise in its opening brief).

¶41 To rescind the contract based on mutual mistake, Buyer “must show by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement should be set aside,” which requires that the mutual mistake cover “a basic assumption on which both parties made the contract,” and “have had such a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances as to upset the very bases of the contract.” ¶ 7 (App. 2000) (quotation omitted).

See Nelson v. Rice , , 568, ¶ 14, , 243 (App. 2000) (citing Maxwell , 184 Ariz. at 88 , 907 P.2d at 57 ) ("Unconscionability is determined as of the time the parties entered into the contract."); see also A.R.S.

See ARCAP 13(a)(6); ¶ 11, n.3 (App. 2000).

v. Levy , , n.1, , n.1 (App. 2008) (failure to develop argument on appeal constitutes abandonment); Nelson v. Rice , , n.3, , n.3 (App. 2000) (argument not raised in opening brief waived).

Nelson v. Rice , , 567 n.3, ¶ 11, , 242 n.3 (App. 2000) (failure to raise argument in opening brief waives argument on appeal).

Comm’n, n.2, ¶ 6, -94 n.2 (App. 2007) (stating that an appellant’s failure to develop and support an argument waives that issue on appeal); n.3, ¶ 11, n.3 (App. 2000) (stating that a party waives an argument by failing to raise it in the opening brief on appeal).

ne contractual terms, particularly where they are represented and have relatively equal bargaining power, see Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., -68, ¶ 12 (2003) (citation omitted), and “[c]ourts should not assume an overly paternalistic attitude toward the parties to a contract by relieving one or another of them of the consequences of what is at worst a bad bargain,” ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (quoting Pac.

¶ 7 (App. 2000) ( ¶ 15 (App. 1998)).

¶ 22 (App. 2015) ( n.3, ¶ 11 (App. 2000)).

.”); see, ¶ 13, (noting that the trial court has to determine whether a contract is unconscionable as a matter of law).

However, this conduct — which allegedly occurred years after the parties entered into the loan contract — cannot give rise to an unconscionability claim because unconscionability is “determined as of the time the parties entered into the contract.” ¶ 14

567 n. 3, ¶ 11, , 242 n. 3 (App.2003).