without the unconscionable term, or may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result.” Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003-NMSC-011, ¶ 15, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We decline to grant a windfall to all borrowers by allowing them to completely avoid the contracts. We hold instead that the quadruple-digit interest rate, a substantively unconscionable term, shall be stricken from the contracts of all borrowers. We then enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term. Id. {50} The district court avoided calculating restitution, calling the ta ated as simple interest. See Consol. Oil & Gas, Inc., v. S. Union Co., 1987-NMSC-055, ¶ 42, 106 N.M. 719, 749 P.2d 1098 (<HOLDING>); c.f. Peters Corp. v. N.M. Banquest Investors
holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a monthbymonth basis holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a paycheckbypaycheck basis holding that plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be calculated on the involuntary loan theory holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable holding that section 5683 must be calculated as simple interest