Zlimen and De Palma suggest that the best course of action is to consult a lawyer from the start if you think a contract you have to sign could be unscrupulous. If you have already signed, Zlimen recommends “hiring a lawyer as soon as you suspect that you may need to get out of the agreement or if you are threatened with prosecution or prosecuted. The sooner the lawyer is engaged, the greater the opportunity to negotiate a cost-effective and advantageous solution. U.C.C article 2-302 states that the doctrine of lack of scruples is intended to prevent an unfair negotiation process and is not intended to overturn the agreed terms when the negotiation process was fair. However, there are cases where the courts have annulled the agreed price conditions on the grounds that the price charged in the contract is unscrupulous. For example: However, a severe undervaluation of real estate and a totally inadequate consideration in itself do not determine whether a transaction is unscrupulous. For example, in one case in Ontario, an owner agreed to sell an option to sell his property for $1.00. The owner later learned that options to purchase a property are usually sold for more than nominal amounts. The court enforced the contract in favor of the option holder, ruling that negotiations about the option price and the price the option holder would pay for the home if they chose to buy were both negotiated fairly and that the seller had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the market and simply did not do so.[Citation needed] The fundamental feature of most unscrupulous contracts is that one party misled the contract under pressure, lack of information or deception. A contract may be unscrupulous in any of the following circumstances: Undue influence may occur when one party exerts significant pressure on the other party to sign the contract. This could mean that the parent party is making false promises or trying to convince the other party to sign the agreement. [Lemke] leases to [Arrowood] the computer hardware and software, office equipment and telephone system currently located at 1220 Depot Street, Manawa, WI, under this Agreement. For income tax purposes, the payment of half of the profit to [Lemke] must be described as a lease payment for the use of the above equipment. [Arrowood] is not permitted to copy the software or programs without [Lemke`s] consent. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement, in writing by [Arrowood] and [Lemke].” Unscrupulous contracts can lead to many legal difficulties. You may want to hire a contract attorney if you have legal disputes or questions such as “What is an unscrupulous contract?” An experienced contract attorney can guide you through the laws in your area to determine the extent of your claim. They can provide you with much-needed legal advice and represent you in court when a lawsuit is filed.
(3) The court may perform the contract in such a way as to avoid an unscrupulous result. The court may limit the nature and amount of damages available. The main case of undue influence is considered as Lloyds Bank Ltd v. Bundy;  The case is notable in the decision that English law should follow the U.S. approach that all infringements of autonomy should fall under the single principle of “unequal bargaining power.” In this case, Bundy agreed to increase the mortgage on his farm to maintain the line of credit for his son`s business. The question was whether the contract that led to the takeover of Bundy`s farm was questionable due to pressure from the bank. The Court of Appeal for England and Wales held that, since the loan amount was already greater than the existing mortgage, Bundy had not received any direct benefit from the agreement to increase the mortgage amount; that the bank had not informed him of the actual financial situation of her son`s business and that she had threatened to take advantage of her son`s loan if Bundy did not accept the increase. In addition, since Bundy relied on Lloyd`s for his son`s mortgage and line of credit, it was found that the bank-client relationship created a fiduciary duty; Therefore, the bank should have recommended that he seek independent legal assistance.  Lord Denning MR concluded that the contract was questionable because of bundy`s unequal bargaining position, since it had entered into the contract without independent advice and the bank was exerting unfair pressure. Essentially, the court ruled that only the bank benefited from the mortgage increase agreement and took advantage of Bundy`s weakness.
The transaction turned out to be unscrupulous and Bundy only had to comply with the lower amount of the mortgage. .