With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1 Farnsworth, supra note 19, § 4.28, at 585. 27 Deminsky, 259 Wis. 2d 587, ¶ 27; Discount Fabric House, 117 Wis. 2d at 602 (quoting Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 415 F. Supp. 264, 268 (E.D. Mich. 1976)); Leasefirst, 168 Wis. 2d at 89-90. As Professor Arthur Allen Leff described it, procedural unconscionability refers to "bargaining naughtiness." Arthur Allen Leff, Unconscionability and the Code — The Emperor's New Clause, 115 U. Pa. L. Rev. 485, 487 (1967) (quoted in 1 White & Summers, supra note 20, § 4-3, at 213). 28 Discount Fabric House, 117 Wis. 2d at 602 (quoting Johnson, 415 F. Supp. at 268); see also Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (unconscionability factors under the Wisconsin Consumer Act). 29 See Pietroske, Inc. v. Globalcom, Inc., 2004 WI App 142, ¶ 6, 275 Wis. 2d 444, 685 N.W.2d 884 (<HOLDING>). See also 8 Lord, supra note 15, § 18.8, at 48

A: holding in the context of a forumselection provision that the balancing of procedural and substantive unconscionability requires courts to consider each questionable forumselection clause on a casebycase basis and precludes the development of a brightline rule
B: holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements
C: holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim
D: holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract
A.