With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as standardized, pre-printed forms that each plaintiff had to sign, and, from a negotiating standpoint, Amoco clearly had greater bargaining power than plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the court does not find that the contracts are so “one-sided” or unfair as to render either the integration clauses or the contracts themselves unenforceable. Even construing the standardized contracts strictly against Amoco and in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is nothing that could reasonably be considered shockingly unfair or offensive about the wording of the contracts or the inclusion of the integration clauses therein. Standardized contracts with integration clauses have been a common part of plaintiffs’ and Amoco’s franchise relationship. See Adams, 13 Kan.App.2d at 497, 774 P.2d 355 (<HOLDING>). In addition, this case does not involve the

A: holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear
B: holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under  2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement
C: holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship
D: holding that nolostprofits clause in parties agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law in part because similar clause had been in the agreement between the parties for years
D.