Abstract：It is widely accepted in the case law that unconscionability, in spite of the dispute among scholars, has a substantial
and a procedural element. The ignorance of the latter would cause conceptual problems and negative results. The
unconscionability doctrine is a materialization of the principle of public policy. It can be applied to bilateral contracts
and some unilateral contracts, and to civil contracts as well as(limitedly)to business contracts. More exactly, either a
contract or a contract term could be unconscionable. In some special circumstances, unconscionability can be established
based on the so-called “bewegliches system” theory, which allows a “compensation” between the substantial and the
procedural element. A modification is always better than a revocation. In case of modifying a contract the court should in
principle try to imitate the bargaining between the parties. A modification according to the default rules should be
exceptional. The rules on the unconscionability doctrine in the draft of the General Part of Chinese Civil Code is to be
improved.
贺剑. 《合同法》第54条第1款第2项(显失公平制度)评注[J]. 法学家, 2017, 0(1): 155-174.
HE Jian. A Commentary on Art. 54 I 2 of the Contract Law: The Doctrine of Unconscionability. , 2017, (1): 155-174.
2017, 
