Also known as: unfairly · unfairness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct or circumstances that are inequitable or prejudicial because they exploit an imbalance, prior misconduct, or risk of harm without legitimate justification. The term identifies situations in which a transaction, evidentiary proffer, or procedural step produces an unjust result that the law will not enforce or admit.
Usman Uddin, facing imminent foreclosure on his commercial building, transferred title to Upstream Petroleum after the lender threatened immediate acceleration and public sale. The lender had previously misapplied payments and reported false delinquencies that damaged Usman's credit. A court later examined the transfer for duress or unfairness because the lender's prior misconduct magnified the coercive effect of its demand.
Ultimate Solutions sued Ultra Precision in federal court for copyright infringement over copied climate maps and added a state-law unfair competition claim arising from the same submissions to a state agency. The federal court exercised pendent jurisdiction over the state claim because both causes of action shared the same nucleus of operative facts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uriah Urban offered a photocopy of a signed lease to prove its terms after the original was lost. The opposing party raised no genuine question about the original's authenticity and presented no circumstances showing that admission of the duplicate would be unfair. The court therefore admitted the duplicate to the same extent as the original.
Usha Upton's bank misapplied loan payments and falsely reported her as delinquent. When the bank later threatened immediate acceleration unless she signed a modification adding a personal guarantee, the prior misconduct significantly increased the threat's coercive effect. A court treated the threat as improper because the resulting exchange was not on fair terms.
The prosecution sought to introduce evidence that Uma Upadhyay had previously altered shipping records in a similar transaction. The court admitted the evidence after finding sufficient proof from which a jury could reasonably conclude the prior act occurred and after determining under Rule 403 that its probative value on intent was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
In a felon-in-possession prosecution, the government offered the full record of Ursula Ung's prior conviction after she offered to stipulate to the status element. The court excluded the detailed record because the name and nature of the conviction carried a risk of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value when the only disputed fact was the defendant's status as a felon.
A threat is improper when the resulting exchange is not on fair terms and the effectiveness of the threat is significantly increased by the threatening party's prior unfair dealing. Courts examine whether the prior misconduct placed the victim in a weaker bargaining position that the threat then exploited.
Supporting sources
Under Rule 403 a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. The inquiry focuses on whether the evidence creates a risk that the jury will decide on an improper basis rather than on the evidence's legitimate probative force.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts examine deeds in lieu of foreclosure for duress or unfairness because the transaction must be voluntary and supported by consideration. Prior misconduct by the mortgagee that magnifies the mortgagor's vulnerability can render the transfer subject to later avoidance.
Supporting sources
…not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be…