With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 208 (1981). A court may find unconsciona-bility where a non-drafting party has no way of knowing a material fact. See, e.g., Mobile Elec. Service, Inc. v. FirsTel, Inc., 649 N.W.2d 603, 606 (S.D.2002) (finding a one-sided contract unconscionable where the non-drafting party had no way of knowing that it was agreeing to pay a tariff); Rozeboom v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 358 N.W.2d 241, 244 (S.D.1984) (“[W]e have very recently spoken against contract provisions which are “one-sided” and declared that they are, in effect, against public policy and should be declared unconscionable.”). A party acts unconscionably when it omits material information from a contract regarding the consumers’ forfeiture of important protections. See Flugge v. Flugge, 681 N.W.2d 837, 842 (S.D.2004) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Action Mech. Inc. v. Deadwood

A: holding that wjaiver occurs when there is an existing right a knowledge of its existence and an actual intention to relinquish it or conduct so inconsistent with the intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that it has been relinquished
B: holding that for an act to be inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and thus constitute a waiver of that right it must repudiate the right of the party who does the act
C: holding that a waiver of right occurs only when one in possession of a right with full knowledge of the material facts does or forebears the doing of something inconsistent with the exercise of the right
D: recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another
C.