Final answer:
A court may not strike down an entire contract if a clause is deemed unconscionable; instead, it may invalidate only the problematic clause while upholding the rest of the contract through severability, unless the clause is central to the contract's purpose.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a clause in a contract (K) is being challenged as unconscionable, a court does not automatically strike down the whole contract. The concept of unconscionability in contract law refers to an agreement that is so unfair to one party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it. It is a principle meant to prevent oppression and unfair surprise, and not just an imbalance in the contractual obligations.
Should a court find a particular clause to be unconscionable, it may choose to enforce the remainder of the contract without the offending clause, depending on whether the unconscionable clause is central to the contract's purpose. This is based on the doctrine of severability, which allows invalid clauses to be severed from a contract, assuming that the remaining contract is still capable of being executed in line with the parties' overall intent.
Therefore, a court's decision to strike down only the unconscionable clause or the entire contract depends on the specific terms and the significance of the clause to the contract's overall agreement and performance.