to paragraph 6. Plaintiff concludes that the contract is essentially an “as is” contract despite the “illusion of warranty” which appears on the contract’s face. As such, the contract is unconscionable. “A bargain is unconscionable if it is such as no person in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other.” Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Reinhardt, 428 N.W.2d 672, 673 (Iowa App.1988) citing Smith v. Harrison, 325 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1982). When determining whether a contract is unconscionable, the court should examine the following factors: assent, unfair surprise, notice, disparity of bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Gentile v. Allied Energy Products, Inc., 479 N.W.2d 607, 609 (Iowa App.1991) (<HOLDING>) citing C & J Fertilizer v. Allied Mut. Ins.
holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding contract not unconscionable where parties were of equal bargaining power plaintiff had opportunity to have an attorney review the contract the contract was clear and easily read the plaintiff had been a party to similar contracts in the past and was under no financial pressure to sign the con tract holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur