Ambiguity Of Unconscionability

The court should not adopt the broad definition of unconscionability as a general rule of law in the State of Confusion:
(i) Judicial administration: The proposed standard would invoke ambiguity on how to apply in the law. Judges would use their individualized subjective beliefs to enforce the doctrine of unconscionability. This could result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement in the court system because how can one expect a judge to set a standard as to what constitutes one-sidedness in a contract.
(ii) Institutional competence: This matter is too subjective to be handled on the court level. The ambiguity of the doctrine and how it should be applied is not something that the court should be dealing with. The courts are set in place
When a contract is formed on enforceable grounds, there should not exist an easy way out of said contract without the agreement of both parties. If one enters into a contract knowing that the terms of the agreement are one-sided, it is at the fault of their own if they later do not approve of the terms they agreed to. The moral concern is the issue arising from allowing people to so easily escape a previously agreed upon contract.
(iv) Deterrence: Accepting the proposed standard would create a precedent that would deter individuals from entering into commercial contracts under the impression that it may be found to be too one-sided. For example, the sale of repurposed goods is an intentionally one-sided agreement. The purchaser agrees to buy the product as-is without later finding that the contract was too one-sided and invokes this doctrine to support a suit.
(v) Economics: There is a substantial economic determinant in the enforcement of the proposed standard. This doctrine would deter necessary business transactions from taking place, ultimately at the expense of the public welfare. Money is necessary for market exchange and if there is a decrease in the entering of contracts, money cannot flow in the method it is designed
Such enforcement of the broad definition of unconscionability would allow for more interpretation as to what constitutes as a one-sided contract. This can be beneficial because a set narrow standard of extreme one-sided contracts would exclude many who see one-sidedness in different terms. The broad interpretation here will allow for more flexibility in the interpretation of the doctrine proposed.
(ii) Institutional competence: The courts are the ideal institution to be dealing with the interpretation of the unconscionability doctrine. They can offer a more in touch awareness as to how the doctrine should be applied to everyday state matters. The court is set in place to interpret the law that best suits the society it is constructed in. There is no better institution to handle this responsibility.
(iii) Morality: Those entering a contract are expected to have executed the contract on the good-will of both parties. If found that there was malice in the construction of the contract, applicable to one-sided agreements, abandonment of the contract may be necessary. The moral obligation behind the standard proposed is one that is fair to both