Weaver v. American Oil Co.
276 N.E.2d 144 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A provision in a standardized form contract is unconscionable and unenforceable if one party has vastly superior bargaining power and the provision is unknown to the weaker party, unless the party seeking to enforce it can show the clause was explained and knowingly agreed to.
Facts:
- Howard Weaver, who had not completed high school, leased a service station from American Oil Company.
- The lease was a standard, pre-printed form contract prepared by American Oil's attorneys.
- The lease contained a 'hold harmless' clause requiring Weaver to indemnify American Oil for any damages resulting from American Oil's own negligence on the premises.
- When the lease was presented for signing each year, an American Oil agent placed it in front of Weaver and said 'sign'.
- The agent never asked Weaver to read the lease, explained its terms, or specifically called his attention to the indemnity clause.
- Weaver signed the annual lease agreements without reading them and was unaware of the legal significance of the indemnity provision.
- An employee of American Oil later negligently sprayed gasoline on Weaver and his assistant on the leased premises, causing them to be burned.
- Weaver's annual net income from operating the station was between $5,000 and $6,000.
Procedural Posture:
- American Oil Company and its employee, Homer Hoffer, filed a declaratory judgment action against Howard Weaver in the trial court to determine Weaver's liability under the lease's indemnity clause.
- The trial court entered judgment for American Oil, finding the clause enforceable and Weaver liable.
- Weaver, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court issued a bifurcated ruling, holding the exculpatory part of the clause invalid but the indemnification part valid and enforceable against Weaver.
- Weaver then filed a petition to transfer the case from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of Indiana for a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an exculpatory and indemnification clause in a standardized form lease contract unconscionable and therefore unenforceable when the lessee, a party with greatly inferior bargaining power and limited education, signed the contract without knowledge of the clause, and the lessor made no attempt to explain it?
Opinions:
Majority - Arterburn, C.J.
No. The exculpatory and indemnification clause is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. Where a contract is a standardized form presented on a 'take it or leave it' basis by a party with superior bargaining power, a provision that is unknown to the weaker party and imposes great hardship or risk is unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The court found a gross inequality of bargaining power between American Oil and Weaver, a man with limited education and business experience. The court rejected the traditional, rigid rule that a party is always bound by what they sign, especially in the context of modern form contracts with hidden, oppressive clauses. It reasoned that the burden should be on the party submitting the form contract to show that any unusual or unconscionable terms were explained to the other party and that there was a 'real and voluntary meeting of the minds,' not merely an objective one. The court analogized the situation to the unconscionability doctrine in the Uniform Commercial Code, focusing on substantive fairness over procedural formality.
Dissenting - Prentice, J.
Yes. The clause is enforceable and the trial court's decision should be affirmed. The dissent argued that a person who signs a contract without reading it is bound by its terms, a long-standing principle of contract law. Judge Prentice contended there was insufficient evidence to show this was an adhesion contract where Weaver's only option was to 'take it or leave it.' Although there was a disparity in economic position, Weaver was not under duress or compulsion and had the opportunity to read the lease and seek counsel. The majority's decision, in the dissent's view, improperly relieves a party of a bad bargain, rewards ignorance and carelessness, and creates an unworkable rule where the less a party knows about a contract, the better their position becomes. The problem stemmed from Weaver's own indifference, not from any unconscionable act by American Oil.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant departure from traditional contract formalism in Indiana, embracing a modern, fairness-based analysis for standardized contracts. By applying the concept of unconscionability to a lease agreement, the court extended principles from sales law to a broader contractual context. The decision shifts the burden onto the drafter of a form contract, particularly one with superior bargaining power, to ensure the weaker party is aware of harsh or unusual terms. This precedent has a major impact on adhesion contracts, empowering courts to police for substantive fairness and protecting less sophisticated parties from oppressive clauses buried in fine print.
Unlock the full brief for Weaver v. American Oil Co.