With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a later time using less, or no, financing at all. In sum, she had numerous options and was not over a barrel in accepting NMAC’s contract. Battle v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 2007 WL 1095681, *6 (E.D.Wis. March 9, 2007). The same is true here. A court does not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to recognize that there are numerous franchising and other investment opportunities available in this state. Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that they had no other choice. It is also clear from the UFOC and the Franchise Agreement that plaintiffs were not prevented from carefully considering the Agreement before signing it or obtaining outside advice. Each franchisee expressly acknowledged that “it has had the opportunity to personally and carefully review” p.2d 1087 (W.D.Mich.2000) (<HOLDING>); and Wong v. T-Mobile USA, 2006 WL 2042512

A: holding fee splitting provision of arbitration agreement unconscionable under california law
B: holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable
C: holding arbitration provision of automobile installment sales agreement unconscionable
D: holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable
C.