---
title: O.C.G.A. § 11-2-302. Unconscionable contract or clause.
collection: code
id: 11-2-302
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 11-2-302 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2-302
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2-302.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2-302/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t11-(v9)-2022-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=b5451bbd_0#page=95
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2-301.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/11-2-303.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: COMMERCIAL CODE / SALES / GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT
---

# O.C.G.A. § 11-2-302. Unconscionable contract or clause.

(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

## History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-302, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

## Law Reviews

For article, “Consumer Protection Against Sellers Misrepresentations,” see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 414 (1969).

For article, “The Unconscionability Offense,” see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 469 (1970).

For note, “Pyramid Marketing Plans and Consumer Protection: State and Federal Regulation,” see 21 J. of Pub. L. 445 (1972).

For article discussing interpretation in Georgia of insurance policies containing evidentiary conditions, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 783 (1978).

For article discussing the anachronistic nature of the Georgia contracts code as dramatized by comparing the doctrine of consideration as it is formulated in the restatements of contracts and in Title 20 of the Georgia Code of 1933, and the interpretative approach Georgia courts have taken in dealing with such code, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 499 (1979).

For article, “The Future Use of Unconscionability and Impracticability as Contract Doctrines,” see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 937 (1989).

For article, “Contract Litigation and the Elite Bar in New York City, 1960-1980,” see 39 Emory L.J. 413 (1990).

For article, “Giving Unconscionability More Muscle: Attorney’s Fees as a Remedy for Contractual Overreaching,” see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 317 (2010).