George and Mary Jane Graham were driving in a car insured by State Farm when they were forced off the road by an unidentified motorist. The Grahams’ vehicle struck a telephone pole and both occupants were injured. When the Grahams were unable to reach an agreement with their insurer, State Farm, regarding the amount they should be paid pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of their automobile insurance policy, they filed suit against State Farm. State Farm responded with a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the policy called for binding arbitration in lieu of litigation in the event of such a dispute. The Grahams did not know about the arbitration clause at the time they paid the first premium. State Farm pointed out that the Grahams, after receiving a copy of the policy, never complained about the arbitration clause at any time during the following two years. The Grahams responded that this was a “take it or leave it” situation, under which they actually had no opportunity to “leave it” because they were denied the information necessary to make a decision at the time they enrolled with State Farm. The court, they contended, should not compel them to arbitrate their claim. They pointed out that this contract was drafted by the insurance company’s lawyers and that the terms were written in a one-sided manner, permitting the powerful insurance company to take advantage of weaker insureds such as the Grahams. Delaware public policy favors the use of arbitration to resolve disputes in situations such as this. Should the court enforce the arbitration clause?