$4.$ Is an objective standard to determine unconscionability or duress possible? How can we distinguish between duress and $$bad luck$$ that motivates entering a contract? Does a party who benefits from an unconscionable contract think it's shockingly unfair? Might that party refuse to deal with people under other terms? How far should courts go to protecting people who enter bad contracts?

$5.$ Almost all of Dr$.$ Carter's patients are covered by an HMO through the two major employers in town. Dr$.$ Carter really does not want to be under contract with the HMO; she thinks it takes away too much of her discretion in caring for patients. On the other hand, her patients will have to find new doctors if she does not contract with the HMO. From the HMO's perspective, its restrictions on referrals and other actions are necessary. Without the restrictions, it would have to raise its premiums above what most employers$/$patients would be willing or able to pay. Is Dr$.$ Carter signing the HMO contract under duress? Are the HMO restrictions unconscionable? Is Dr$.$ Carter an unsophisticated party without equal bargaining power?

$6.$ When Kim filed for divorce, she really believed she would get sole custody of her child, Joey, because she had been a stay$-$at$-$home mother for five years while her husband worked long hours and frequently traveled on business. Things have not gone as expected. Kim has had to start working outside the home and is finding it difficult to balance work and parenthood. The court$-$ordered temporary support is lower than she expected, and she is behind on paying bills. Worst of all, Kim's husband is planning to reveal to the judge that Kim had an addiction to prescription painkillers a few years ago, and once, while Kim was passed out, Joey $($then two years old$)$ wandered out of the house and was brought home by the police. Tired of the whole situation and depressed, Kim signs a settlement agreement under which she will share custody of Joey with her husband on an equal basis. Duress?

$7.$ Discuss the legal implications of the following: Laurie, a beautician at Justin's, has a large client base. She is very talented and hopes to open her own shop when she saves enough money. For now, she is a content employee, paying off a student loan and charge account balances. One day, with no warning, Justin hands Laurie a contract. It recites her current terms of employment, with one difference. The contract contains a statement that Laurie agrees not to open her own beauty shop or work for a competing shop within a $50-$mile radius for a period of two years after leaving Justin's for any reason. Laurie does not want to sign the agreement. Justin says that Laurie must sign it right now or else she will be fired and have to leave immediately without access to her client records.