§ 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
recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another 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 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 holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error 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