Which statement regarding unconscionability is incorrect?

• A. It considers procedural unconscionability.
• B. It considers substantive unconscionability.
• C. It can shock the conscience.
• D. It does not allow any examination of fairness in contract formation.

Answer: (D)

Unconscionability tests fairness in both how a contract is formed and what it contains. It splits into procedural unconscionability, which looks at the bargaining process—things like oppression, surprise, and a lack of meaningful choice—and substantive unconscionability, which focuses on terms that are unreasonably harsh or one‑sided. The idea can be described as shocking the conscience when terms go so far beyond acceptable fairness that enforcement would be unjust. Because the doctrine is about fairness in formation and in terms, saying there’s no examination of fairness in contract formation is incorrect. A court will consider both how the contract came about and what it imposes, and it may invoke the concept when terms are extraordinarily one‑sided or when the bargaining process was unfair.