ÿWPCb! …# VUNa %¯ 0 DµbùUF 0`G w@§ 4ç û  0ˆ 0Dš 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d»U>‘]U 6îB)$DCM D3 AMà B 0@-U*m2—ÉÐÛÁ«v~lvÓê AO½Æ 0DÒ D/! BE!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò- ù-<à09Z ‹.Courier New Regular(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý ;D<=D>?E@ADBPCÓ€Oz!Ø' °8;  3|xO(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd,,,,'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ4,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔThe€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€that€in€Tennessee€there€is€no€causeÏof€action€in€tort€for€breach€of€the€duty€of€good€faith€in€the€performanceÏof€a€contract.€€òòSolomon€v.€First€American€Nat'l€Bankóó,€774€S.W.2d€935,€945Ï(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€17€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòContractsóó€ðð€732€(1991).Ì ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ"Whenever€a€claim€or€defense€is€founded€upon€a€written€instrumentÏother€than€a€policy€of€insurance,€a€copy€of€such€instrument€or€theÏpertinent€parts€thereof€shall€be€attached€to€the€pleading€as€an€exhibitÏ...."€€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€10.03.€€€Ì ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„1„203€(1992)€is€not€applicable€to€theÏcontracts€between€the€parties€in€this€case,€because,€by€its€terms,€thatÏstatute€applies€only€to€contracts€within€Chapters€1€through€9€of€theÏUniform€Commercial€Code.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ 8 ÑÑ À ћрÑÑ7€kÞXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÖ€&ÖÑ  ќԀ'ÔÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNovember€4,€1996Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€+/);+'h|¾` Ú/ `€€Lß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌAPRIL€WALLACE,€VICKIE€GWIN,à à(ÌET€AL.,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ShelbyÏCircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.ÏJames€M.€Tharpe,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌNATIONAL€BANK€OF€COMMERCE,à à(€€No.Ï02S01„9509„CV„00074ÌET€AL.,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à à(ÌÔ€'ôÔÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appellantsóó:à àà àòòà àForÏDefendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÌIra€M.€Thomasà àà àà àà àà àJ.€O.ÏBass,€Jr.ÌAl€H.ÏThomasà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌThomas€&€ThomasÌMemphisà àà àà àà àà àà àLeoÏBearman,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€C.ÏSpeerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMoniqueÏA.€NassarÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌRobert€L.€Greenà àà àà àà àà àJ.ÍRichard€BuchignaniÌœNeely›€Green,€Fargarsonà àà àà àà àMemphisÌ€€€&€BrookeÌMemphisà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€Craddock,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFrank€J.€Glankler,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBill€R.€HesterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌà àà àÌÒ € ÒÒ Ð Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àH.€Frederick€Humbracht,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€WadeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌÌÔ€'XÔà@ àòòò òO€P€I€œN›€I€O€œNóóó ó›ÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€affirming€the€trial€court's€award€of€summaryÏjudgment€for€the€defendants.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏrecord€shows,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€defendant€banks€didÏnot€breach€the€duty€of€good€faith€in€imposing€fees€forÏreturned€checks€drawn€on€accounts€with€insufficient€funds.€ÏThis€Court€concurs€in€the€decision€made€by€the€trial€court€andÏthe€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThe€Caseóóó óÌÌà àForty€named€plaintiffs€filed€suit€against€nine€banksÏdoing€business€in€Shelby€County€asserting€six€separate€causesÏof€action,€all€based€on€the€allegation€that€the€banks€chargedÏ"excessive"€fees€for€checks€drawn€on€accounts€withÏinsufficient€funds€("NSF€checks")€and€for€third€party€checksÏdeposited€and€returned€unpaid€("DIR€checks").€€The€plaintiffsÏseek€compensatory€damages,€punitive€damages,€and€trebleÏdamages.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€defendants'€motions€toÏdismiss€the€suit€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€on€which€reliefÏcan€be€granted.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€on€the€first€appeal,Íaffirmed€the€dismissal€of€all€claims€except€the€allegationÏthat€the€banks€breached€a€common€law€duty€of€good€faith€in€theÏperformance€of€their€contractual€obligations€to€theirÏcustomers.€€On€remand,€the€defendants'€motions€for€summaryÏjudgment,€based€on€the€pleadings,€affidavits,€andÏstipulations,€were€granted€by€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€affirmed.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òAnalysisóóó óÌÌà àThis€is€an€action€for€breach€of€written€contract.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€noted€that€the€plaintiffs€failed€toÏcomply€with€Rule€10.03,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,Ïregarding€a€claim€founded€upon€a€written€instrument× ƒ1 ××  ×€but€foundÏthat€the€references€in€the€complaint€to€the€substance€of€theÍdeposit€agreements€upon€which€the€plaintiffs€base€their€suitÏmeet€the€minimum€requirements€for€stating€a€cause€of€action.€ÏIn€order€to€consider€the€merits€of€the€case,€this€Court€willÏdefer€to€the€Court€of€Appeals'€decision.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€do€not€contend€that€there€areÏdisputed€issues€of€material€fact.€€They€contend€instead€thatÏthe€court€erred€in€holding€as€a€matter€of€law€that€theÏdefendants€did€not€breach€the€duty€of€good€faith€in€theÏperformance€of€their€obligations€pursuant€to€the€contractsÏbetween€the€banks€and€their€customers.ÌÌà àThe€essential€facts€shown€by€the€record€are:€€eachÏplaintiff€had€a€checking€account€with€at€least€one€of€theÏdefendant€banks;€each€account€was€opened€upon€the€execution€ofÏa€deposit€agreement€prepared€by€the€bank€and€signed€by€theÏcustomer;€the€agreements€provide€that€the€customer€agrees€toÏthe€terms€stated€in€the€agreement,€including€service€chargesÏfor€NSF€and€DIR€checks;€each€customer€was€informed,€upon€theÏexecution€of€the€deposit€agreement,€of€the€amount€of€the€NSFÏand€DIR€fees;€each€customer€also€was€informed€that€the€feesÍwere€subject€to€change€upon€notice€to€the€banks'€customers;Ïeach€customer€was€given€notice€prior€to€the€effective€date€ofÏthe€increase€in€fees;€and€each€plaintiff€was€charged€at€leastÏone€service€charge€for€an€NSF€or€DIR€check.€€ÌÌà àThe€first€issue€for€consideration€is€the€nature€ofÏthe€duty€of€good€faith.€€In€Tennessee,€the€common€law× ƒ2 ××  ×€imposesÏa€duty€of€good€faith€in€the€performance€of€contracts.€€ThisÏrule€has€been€considered€in€several€recent€decisions€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.€€The€law€regarding€the€good€faithÏperformance€of€contracts€was€well€stated€by€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€in€òòTSC€Industries,€Inc.€v.€Tomlinóó,€743€S.W.2d€169,€173Ï(Tenn.€App.€1987):ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€true€that€there€is€implied€in€everyÏcontract€a€duty€of€good€faith€and€fairÏdealing€in€its€performance€andÏenforcement,€and€a€person€is€presumed€toÏknow€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€Restatement€(2d)ÏContracts,€ðð€205€(1979).€€What€this€dutyÏconsists€of,€however,€depends€upon€theÏindividual€contract€in€each€case.€€InÍconstruing€contracts,€courts€look€to€theÏlanguage€of€the€instrument€and€to€theÏintention€of€the€parties,€and€impose€aÏconstruction€which€is€fair€andÏreasonable.ÌÌÌÌÓÓIn€òòCovington€v.€Robinsonóó,€723€S.W.2d€643,€645„46€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986),€which€was€relied€upon€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòTSCÏIndustries,€Inc.€v.€Tomlinóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€inÏdetermining€whether€the€parties€acted€in€good€faith€in€theÏperformance€of€a€contract,€the€court€must€judge€theÏperformance€against€the€intent€of€the€parties€as€determined€byÏa€reasonable€and€fair€construction€of€the€language€of€theÏinstrument.€€In€a€later€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeals€heldÏthat€good€faith€in€performance€is€measured€by€the€terms€of€theÏcontract.€€"They€[the€parties]€may€by€agreement,€however,Ïdetermine€the€standards€by€which€the€performance€ofÏobligations€are€to€be€measured."€€òòBank€of€Crockett€v.ÏCullipheróó,€752€S.W.2d€84,€91€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àThe€present€case€is€similar€to€a€case€in€which€theÏOregon€Supreme€Court€held€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€bankÌacted€in€good€faith.€€That€court€described€the€case€asÍfollows:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€This€class€action€involves€theÏobligation€of€good€faith€in€theÏperformance€of€contracts.€€The€primaryÏissue€is€the€nature€of€the€good€faithÏobligation€owed€by€defendant€FirstÏNational€Bank€of€Oregon€(Bank)€to€itsÏnon„business€checking€account€customersÏ(depositors)€in€setting€and€revising,Ïfrom€time€to€time,€the€fees€it€charged€toÏdepositors€who€wrote€checks€when€thereÏwere€not€sufficient€funds€in€theirÏaccounts€(NSF€fees).ÌÌÓÓÌòòTolbert€v.€First€Nat'l€Bankóó,€823€P.2d€965,€966€(Or.€1991).€ÏUpon€finding€facts€very€similar€to€the€facts€in€the€caseÏbefore€the€Court,€the€Oregon€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€uncontroverted€evidence€beforeÏthe€trial€court€on€summary€judgment€inÏthis€case€was€that:€€(1)€the€depositorsÏinitially€agreed€that€Bank€could€changeÏthe€amount€of€the€NSF€fees€in€itsÏunilateral€discretion;€(2)€Bank'sÏpractice€was€to€inform€depositors€ofÏfuture€changes€to€the€NSF€fees€beforeÏsuch€changes€became€effective;€and€(3)Ïplaintiffs€continued€to€maintain€theirÏaccounts€with€Bank€and,€in€some€cases,Ïeven€continued€to€write€NSF€checks€afterÏBank€informed€them€of€the€changes.€€NoÏinference€available€to€plaintiffs€(otherÏthan€flat€disbelief,€which€is€not€anÍinference€that€plaintiffs€may€invoke€onÏsummary€judgment)€creates€an€issue€ofÏfact€as€to€these€pivotal€circumstances.€ÏBased€on€this€record,€any€òòreasonableóóÏexpectations€held€by€the€depositors€wereÏmet€by€Bank's€procedures.€€As€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€Bank€acted€in€good€faith€in€itsÏtreatment€of€the€NSF€fees;€there€was€noÏissue€regarding€any€material€fact,€andÏBank€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€971€(emphasis€in€original).€€That€court's€rationaleÏregarding€the€duty€to€perform€in€good€faith€was€stated€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€We€emphasize€that€it€is€only€theÏobjectively€reasonable€expectations€ofÏparties€that€will€be€examined€inÏdetermining€whether€the€obligation€ofÏgood€faith€has€been€met.€€In€the€contextÏof€this€case€„€when€(l)€the€parties€agreeÏto€(and€their€contract€provides€for)€aÏunilateral€exercise€of€discretionÏregarding€changes€in€one€of€the€contractÏterms,€and€(2)€the€discretion€isÏexercised€after€prior€notice€„€we€hold€asÏa€matter€of€law€that€the€parties'Ïreasonable€expectations€have€been€met.€Ì€ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€970.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€as€in€the€òòTolbertóó€case,€the€contractÏauthorized€the€banks€to€charge€overdraft€fees,€the€customersÏwere€advised€regarding€the€amounts€of€those€fees€upon€theÏexecution€of€the€deposit€agreements,€and€they€were€advised€ofÏthe€increases€in€the€fees€before€the€increases€becameÏeffective.€€The€language€of€the€agreements€clearly€states€theÏterms€and€reflects€the€intent€of€the€parties.€€Reason€requiresÏthe€conclusion€that€the€plaintiffs€could€expect€that€theÏstated€fees€would€be€imposed€on€their€NSF€and€DIR€checks.€ÏPerformance€of€a€contract€according€to€its€terms€cannot€beÏcharacterized€as€bad€faith.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€would€avoid€this€conclusion€byÏasserting€that,€even€though€the€banks'€acts€in€charging€feesÏwere€consistent€with€the€terms€of€the€deposit€agreements,Ïthose€agreements€were€adhesive€in€nature€and,€therefore,Ïprovided€the€banks€no€authority€to€charge€fees€characterizedÏby€the€plaintiffs€as€"too€high,"€"excessive,"€and€"in€excessÏof€the€banks'€own€cost€in€handling€the€transaction."€€ÌÌà àBefore€addressing€the€plaintiffs'€allegation€thatÍthe€deposit€agreements€are€adhesive€and,€therefore,€notÏenforceable,€it€should€be€noted€that€the€common€law€duty€ofÏgood€faith€in€the€performance€of€a€contract€does€not€apply€toÏthe€formation€of€a€contract.€€òòSeeóó€Restatement€(Second)€ofÏContracts,€ðð€205€œcmt.›€c€(1979).€€€Consequently,€the€common€lawÏduty€of€good€faith€does€not€extend€beyond€the€agreed€uponÏterms€of€the€contract€and€the€reasonable€contractualÏexpectations€of€the€parties.€€òòSeeóó€òòSheets€v.€Knightóó,€779€P.2dÏ1000€(Ore.€1989).€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs'€allegations€raise€two€furtherÏquestions€„€whether€the€deposit€agreements€are€contracts€ofÏadhesion€and,€if€they€are€contracts€of€adhesion,€are€the€termsÏenforceable.€€This€Court€recently€approved€the€followingÏstatement€defining€and€setting€forth€the€essentialÏcharacteristics€of€an€adhesion€contract:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€An€adhesion€contract€has€beenÏdefined€as€"a€standardized€contract€formÏoffered€to€consumers€of€goods€andÏservices€on€essentially€a€'take€it€orÏleave€it'€basis,€without€affording€theÏconsumer€a€realistic€opportunity€toÏbargain€and€under€such€conditions€thatÏthe€consumer€cannot€obtain€the€desiredÍproduct€or€service€except€by€acquiescingÏto€the€form€of€the€contract."€€ProfessorÏHenderson€has€observed€that€"the€essenceÏof€an€adhesion€contract€is€thatÏbargaining€positions€and€leverage€enableÏone€party€'to€select€and€control€risksÏassumed€under€the€contract.'"€€CourtsÏgenerally€agree€that€"[t]he€distinctiveÏfeature€of€a€contract€of€adhesion€is€thatÏthe€weaker€party€has€no€realistic€choiceÏas€to€its€terms."Ì€ÌÓÓÌòòBuraczynski€v.€Eyringóó,€919€S.W.2d€314,€320€(Tenn.€1996)Ï(citations€omitted).€ÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€does€not€support€theÏplaintiffs'€claim€that€the€agreements€between€the€banks€andÏtheir€customers€are€adhesion€contracts.€€Some€of€theÏcharacteristics€of€an€adhesion€contract€are€present,€theÏdeposit€agreements€are€standardized€forms,€and,€undoubtedly,Ïthe€opportunity€to€open€an€account€with€a€particular€bank€wasÏpresented€on€a€take„it„or„leave„it€basis.€€However,€theseÏfactors€standing€alone€are€not€sufficient.€€The€record€showsÏthat€the€banks€provided€checking€accounts€which€were€exemptÏfrom€overdraft€charges.€€The€record€does€not€include€aÏschedule€of€the€charges,€and,€perhaps€most€significantly,Íthere€is€no€showing€in€the€record€that€the€customers€had€noÏrealistic€choice€but€to€acquiesce€in€the€imposition€of€theÏbanks'€charges.€€There€is€no€showing€that€the€fees€were€theÏsame€at€all€the€defendant€banks€or€that€banking€services€couldÏnot€be€obtained€from€other€institutions.€€It€is€commonÏknowledge€that€the€banking€industry€is€very€competitive.€€ForÏexample,€different€banks€may€charge€lower€fees€for€someÏservices€and€higher€fees€for€other€services,€and€they€also€mayÏcharge€lower€interest€rates€on€loans€but€higher€fees€forÏservices,€thus€providing€choices€which€may€appeal€to€variousÏprospective€customers.€€In€the€absence€of€a€showing€that€thereÏwas€no€effective€competition€in€the€providing€of€servicesÏamong€the€banks€in€the€area€served€by€the€defendants,€there€isÏno€basis€for€concluding€that€the€appellants€had€no€realisticÏchoice€regarding€the€terms€for€obtaining€banking€services.€€ÌÌà àAnd,€further,€not€all€adhesion€contracts€areÏunenforceable.€€Even€if€a€contract€is€found€to€be€adhesive,€itÏis€enforceable€unless€it€is€unduly€oppressive€orÏunconscionable.€€œThe€Court€discussed€this€issue€in€òòBuraczynskiÏv.€Ewingóó:ÌÌÓÓà8 à›œ€€€€€Our›€conclusion€that€the€contractsÏwere€contracts€of€adhesion€is€not€...Ïdeterminative€of€the€contract'sÏenforceability.€€òòEnforceability€generallyÏdepends€upon€whether€the€terms€of€theÏcontract€are€beyond€the€reasonableÏexpectations€of€an€ordinary€person,€orÏoppressive€or€unconscionableóó.œ›€CourtsÏwill€not€enforce€adhesion€contracts€whichÏare€oppressive€to€the€weaker€party€orÏwhich€serve€to€limit€the€obligations€andÏliability€of€the€stronger€party.œÌÌÓÓÌòòBuraczynskióó,€9l9€S.W.2d€at€320€(citations€omitted).€€The›ÏCalifornia€Supreme€Court€discussed€this€rule€in€òòGraham€v.ÏScissor„Tail,€Inc.óó,€623€P.2d€165€(Ca.€1981):€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Generally€speaking,€there€are€twoÏjudicially€imposed€limitations€on€theÏenforcement€of€adhesion€contracts€orÏprovisions€thereof.€€The€first€is€thatÏsuch€a€contract€or€provision€which€doesÏnot€fall€within€the€reasonableÏexpectations€of€the€weaker€or€"adhering"Ïparty€will€not€be€enforced€against€him.€ÏThe€second„„a€principle€of€equityÏapplicable€to€all€contracts€generally„„isÏthat€a€contract€or€provision,€even€ifÏconsistent€with€the€reasonableÏexpectations€of€the€parties,€will€beÏdenied€enforcement€if,€considered€in€itsÏcontext,€it€is€unduly€oppressive€orÏ"unconscionable."ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€172„173€(citations€œomitted).›ÓÓÌÌà àAs€previously€discussed,€the€reasonable€expectationsÏof€the€appellants€were€that€fees€would€be€imposed€pursuant€toÏthe€terms€of€the€agreements.€€Further,€based€on€the€recordÏbefore€the€Court,€the€provisions€in€the€agreements€regardingÏNSF€and€DIR€fees€were€not€oppressive€or€unconscionable.ÌÌà àThe€determination€that,€on€the€facts€shown€by€theÏrecord,€the€defendants,€as€a€matter€of€law,€have€not€breachedÏthe€common€law€duty€of€good€faith€in€the€performance€of€theÏcontracts€with€their€checking€account€customers€œresolves›€theÏissue€presented€in€this€case.€€The€defendants'€assertion€thatÏunconscionable€and€oppressive€provisions€of€a€contract€cannotÏconstitute€the€basis€for€a€cause€of€action,€but€only€can€beÏpleaded€in€defense€to€an€action€for€breach€of€contract,€needÏnot€be€considered.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€sustainingÏsummary€judgment€for€the€defendants€and€dismissing€the€suit€isÍaffirmed.€€ÌÌà àCosts€will€be€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.