Passage A: Contract law is based on the principle of freedom of contract, which allows parties to set their own terms and allocate risks as they see fit. Courts should generally enforce the literal language of a written agreement, as this predictability is essential for commercial stability. If judges were allowed to rewrite contracts based on their own perceptions of fairness, it would create uncertainty and discourage parties from entering into valuable agreements. The role of the court is to be a neutral arbiter of the parties' expressed intent, not a guardian of social equity.

Passage B: The idea that contracts are always the result of a free and equal bargain is a legal fiction. In reality, many agreements are characterized by massive imbalances of power, such as those between a large corporation and an individual consumer. In such cases, enforcing the literal terms of a contract can lead to unconscionable outcomes that violate basic principles of fairness. Courts have a responsibility to scrutinize contracts for procedural and substantive fairness, ensuring that the law does not become a tool for exploitation under the guise of freedom of contract.