You rightly point out that unconscionability involves both procedural and substantive aspects, and it's essential to consider both factors when assessing the fairness of a contract. You also noted that while the total price Amy would pay for the home theater setup may appear to be substantively unfair, there's no clear evidence of procedural unconscionability in this case. However, Amy's voluntary decision to sign the contract without shopping around suggests that a) she had no knowledge of home theater market prices and b) trusted the salesman had put together a fair deal. The salesman had taken advantage of her lack of knowledge and put the contract together to make a buck. I would even argue the same applies if Amy was looking for health insurance where she may find herself facing a contract with terms that appear unconscionable due to high premiums with Insurance Company Y and then later on comes across Insurance Company X who offers the same coverage but with lower premiums. Food for thought! your thoughts