Which type of contract is considered so one-sided that a court may refuse to enforce it?

An unconscionable contract is characterized by a significant imbalance in the parties' bargaining power or where the terms are so oppressive that they shock the conscience. Courts may refuse to enforce such contracts because they are deemed to be fundamentally unfair. The key elements that make a contract unconscionable typically involve one party having superior knowledge or power, leading to unfair terms that leave the other party at a substantial disadvantage.

In contrast, contracts that are labeled as discretionary do not fit into this category, as they relate to terms that allow one party the option to choose their course of action without indicating overreach. Quasi-contracts are not actual contracts but are instead a legal concept to prevent unjust enrichment when no formal agreement exists. Implied contracts arise from actions or circumstances rather than explicit agreements, and they do not inherently possess the extreme imbalance found in unconscionable contracts. Hence, the notion of an unconscionable contract accurately captures the essence of the question, focusing on scenarios that involve severe unfairness.