Contract law serves as the foundation of modern commerce by ensuring that promises are enforceable. One controversial aspect of this field is the doctrine of unconscionability, which allows a court to refuse to enforce a contract that is so one-sided that it shocks the conscience. Critics argue that this doctrine undermines the principle of freedom of contract, which holds that competent adults should be allowed to agree to any terms they choose. They contend that judges use unconscionability to impose their own subjective views of fairness on private agreements. However, this criticism overlooks the reality of power imbalances in the modern marketplace. Large corporations often present consumers with 'take-it-or-leave-it' adhesion contracts that contain predatory terms. In these cases, there is no true 'freedom' of contract because the consumer lacks any meaningful choice. Thus, the doctrine of unconscionability is not an interference with freedom, but a necessary protection against the abuse of economic power.