N.D.C.C. §§ 47-16-01 through 47-16-30.1, 47-16-31 through 47-16-35, 47-16-42 § 47-16-13.3
Unconscionability.
Operative Text
47-16-13.3. Unconscionability.
1. If a court of competent jurisdiction, as a matter of law, finds:
a. A residential dwelling unit rental agreement or any provision thereof was
unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement,
enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or
limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable
result.
b. A settlement in which a party waives or agrees to forego a claim or right under
sections 47-16-13.1 through 47-16-13.6 or under a rental agreement was
unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the settlement,
enforce the remainder of the settlement without the unconscionable provision, or
limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable
result.
2. If unconscionability is put into issue by a party or by the court upon its own motion, the
parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the
setting, purpose, and effect of the rental agreement or settlement to aid the court in
making the determination.North Dakota law under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-13.3 gives courts the authority to address rental agreements or settlements that are found to be unconscionable—meaning grossly unfair or one-sided—at the time they were made. A court may refuse to enforce the entire agreement, strike only the offending provision while keeping the rest intact, or narrow the provision's application to prevent an unjust outcome. When unconscionability is raised, all parties must be given a fair chance to present evidence about the circumstances, intent, and effects of the agreement before the court decides.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-13.3, operators who draft or present residential lease agreements generally ensure that all terms are fair, clearly written, and not structured in ways that could be deemed grossly one-sided at the time of signing. Compliant property managers pay particular attention to provisions that waive tenant rights or limit remedies, since courts may single out and void those clauses even while enforcing the rest of the lease. Maintaining transparent, balanced lease language reduces the risk that any provision will be scrutinized as unconscionable in a future proceeding.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
N.D.C.C. § 47-16-13.3 provides tenants with a legal avenue to challenge rental agreement terms or settlements that were unreasonably unfair when they were entered into. A tenant—or even the court on its own initiative—may raise unconscionability as an issue, after which both sides have the opportunity to present evidence about the context and purpose of the agreement. Tenants who believe a lease clause or a settlement they signed was grossly one-sided may wish to consult a tenant-rights organization or legal aid provider to understand how this provision might apply to their circumstances.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 28, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation