I'm no attorney but I took business law I and II in college. I remember the basics about contracts. One thing that may make a contract voidable is
Unconscionability.
Seems to me that Iowa was grossly out negotiated and outmanuvered by Cornich.
I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS RELEVANT OR VALID BUT - guys like me on the internet know just enough to be dangerous
11.05 Defenses Based on Unconscionability, Law and Public Policy A contract, in whole or in part, may be void or voidable based on unconscionability, illegality, or violation of public policy. If the contract performances are severable, the court may refuse to enforce the terms that offend law or public policy and enforce the remainder of the contract.
[1] Unconscionability
Generally, a defense based on unconscionability must present both procedural and substantive unconscionability.
Procedural unconscionability, which is manifested by
unfair surprise, relates to the aggrieved party's understanding of the contract terms due to factors such as:
- inconspicuous print in the writing
- unintelligible legal language
- lack of opportunity to read the contract or seek clarification of terms
- illiteracy
- imbalanced bargaining positions (such as in adhesion contracts)
Substantive unconscionability relates to contracts that are, in whole or in part, deemed to be oppressive, such as:
- provisions that deprive one party of the benefit of the agreement or an adequate remedy for the other party's breach
- provisions that bear no reasonable relation to the risk involved
- provisions that are substantially disadvantageous to one party without producing a commensurate benefit to the other party
- a great disparity between the cost and the selling price of the item that is the subject of the contract in absence of objective justification for such disparity
