I. Style of Case and Citation:
Waters v Min Ltd 587 N.E.2d 231 (Mass.1992)
II. Court Rendering Final Decision:
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
III. Identification of Parties and Procedural Details
Gail A.Waters Plaintiff, Thomas Beacuchemin., Defendant.

IV. Discussion of the Facts:

Gail Waters (plaintiff) owned an annuity contract worth $189,000, with a total potential value of $694,000 over 25 years. When Waters was 21, she began dating Thomas Beauchemin (defendant), who had a strong influence over her. He introduced her to drugs and exhausted her credit card accounts. He then suggested that she sell her annuity contract and, as an agent of Min Ltd. (Min) (defendants), initiated negotiations between Waters and Min. Waters contracted to sell her annuity contract to Min for $50,000. In the negotiations, Min was represented by counsel and Waters was not. In recognition of his fostering the sale, Min dropped a $7,000 debt that Beauchemin owed them. Waters brought suit for rescission of the contract on the grounds that it was unconscionable. The trial court found in her favor. Min appealed.
V. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute
The defendants contend that the judge erred by (1) finding the contract unconscionable (and by concluding the defendants assumed no risks and therefore finding the contract oppressive); (2) refusing them specific performance; and (3) failing to require the plaintiff to return all the funds received from them.
Unconscionability. The defendants argue that the evidence does not support the finding that the contract was unconscionable or that they assumed no risks and therefore that the contract was oppressive. "[W]e may not set aside findings of fact `unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Also, we may not