ABSTRACT
The doctrine of unconscionability fits uneasily in contemporary contract law. On one hand, students learn that unconscionability is divided into two parts: procedural and substantive. And that the rubrics for these parts are lack of meaningful choice and unreasonably one-sided terms. Beyond these abstract expressions there is not much more to study except how different courts apply them.
This chapter explains that unconscionability is tethered to embodied human nature and shows how it drew on the biblical text, Roman law, and Greek philosophy as it entered the Western legal tradition. It also holds out hope that correctly understanding unconscionability can both make it more predictable and rescue it from partisan ideological warfare.
