According to Woods v. Hubley, a transaction can be set aside for unconscionability in certain cases. Which of the following would not be relevant to that determination?
A) There is inequality in the bargaining positions of the parties arising out of ignorance of a weaker party.
B) There is inequality in the bargaining positions of the parties arising out of need or distress of a weaker party.
C) A stronger party has consciously used the position of power to achieve an advantage.
D) The agreement reached is substantially unfair to the weaker party.
E) The agreement reached was not reduced to writing.
TRUE/FALSE. Write 'T' if the statement is true and 'F' if the statement is false.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The fact that the agreement was not reduced to writing would not be relevant to the determination of unconscionability. The other factors listed are relevant to assessing whether a transaction is unconscionable.

Answer: T/F (This is not a statement, please rewrite the question.)

According to Woods V