В¶ 14 Drogorub contends the law that is common analysis is inapplicable whenever an agreement is purported to be unconscionable underneath the customer work. He points down that Wis. Stat. В§ 425.107, the portion of the work working with unconscionability, listings nine facets a court “may consider . As pertinent to the presssing dilemma of unconscionability[.]” SeeWis. Stat. В§ 425.107(3). The statute will not need a finding of either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Continue reading “16 In this instance, the circuit court determined the mortgage agreements Drogorub signed were procedurally unconscionable because:”