Well, that's asking a bit much. My theory of Contract is that contracts freely entered into are presumptively valid, but where there is a gross disparity in power or in benefit, the beneficiary party bears the burden of demonstrating that the contract is valid.
Who determines what constitutes a "gross disparity", provided that both Contractors are of sound mind and free will?
Respectfully, your argument reminds me of Frederick Nymeyer's critique of John Calvin's error concerning Usury Law -- according to Nymeyer (if I remember correctly; I haven't the Article handy, as Contra Mundum's Nymeyer links are presently broken), Calvin erred when he argued that the Biblical Prohibition on "Usury" pertained only to "extreme" Rates of Interest.
Nymeyer counter-argued that, when read in context of the totality of Biblical references to Lending at Interest, the "Usury" Prohibition did not pertain to Commercial Lending Rates at all; Borrowing at even, say, a nosebleed 30% Annual Interest Rate would not be "egregious" or "usurious" in the least, if one has a reasonable expectation of far greater profits (had one borrowed $21 dollars at 30% annual interest to buy a share of Microsoft in 1986, and never repaid the loan -- one would still have about a hundred-fold excess return as of today, after repayment of all compounded interest and principal).
Thus, Nymeyer argued, Commercial Lending for Enterprise Profit is Biblically governed by the Free Market and existing monetary conditions, and not some arbitrary standard of "how much" is "too much".
It seems to me that the same rule applies: "Who determines what constitutes a "gross disparity", provided that both Contractors are of sound mind and free will?"
Until you can answer that, you haven't established a Precedent role for the State. (IMHO).
Best, OP