ORS § 90 § 90.135
Unconscionability.
Operative Text
(1) If the court, as a matter of law, finds: (a) A 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; or (b) A settlement in which a party waives or agrees to forgo a claim or right under this chapter 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.
Oregon Revised Statutes § 90.135 gives courts the authority to address rental agreements or settlement terms that are found to be fundamentally unfair at the time they were made. When a court determines, as a matter of law, that a provision is unconscionable, it can refuse to enforce the entire agreement, strike only the offending clause while keeping the rest intact, or narrow the clause's application to prevent an unjust outcome. Either party—or the court itself—may raise the issue of unconscionability, and when it is raised, both sides must be given a fair chance to present evidence about the context, purpose, and effect of the agreement or settlement.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under ORS § 90.135, rental agreements and any related settlements that contain terms a court could view as grossly one-sided or oppressive at the time of signing are vulnerable to judicial modification or non-enforcement. Operators who follow compliant practices generally use clear, balanced lease language that reflects the actual bargaining context and avoid provisions that impose extreme burdens on tenants without legitimate justification. Maintaining documentation of how lease terms were presented and agreed upon can be relevant if unconscionability is ever raised in a proceeding.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
ORS § 90.135 provides a legal basis for challenging a rental agreement or settlement that was fundamentally unfair when it was signed, whether the unfairness affected the whole document or just a specific clause. Tenants who believe a lease term or a settlement waiving rights under Oregon's landlord-tenant law was unconscionable may raise this issue as a defense in court proceedings, and the court may also raise it on its own. Tenant-rights organizations and legal aid offices can help explain how courts have applied this provision and what kinds of evidence—such as the circumstances surrounding signing—tend to be relevant in these determinations.
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 7, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.