It was not a one-side contract. It was a contract that allocated risk. In this case, the risk of potentially having to pay alimony was waived. In return, the guy agreed to marry her. Without waiving alimony, there would be no wedding. Its really no different than a construction contract whereby each party takes on different risk, and therefore, each party gets a different degree of reward.
The prenup is one-sided precisely because, in return for giving up the right to alimony, she got nothing in return in the prenup.
Of course, a real lawyer who took Contracts will probably want to weigh in and say whether or not I'm right.
The courts are fairly straight when it comes to timing of pre-nupt agreement presentations.
Two days or two hours that is not reasonable. In this case two days was not a reasonable amount of time to seek independent legal counsel to review the agreement and negotiate any additional terms or conditions. There is an element of reliance in the days leading up to the wedding.
The EXACT SAME agreement might have survived if he had presented it to her three months instead of two days.
BTW the keeping of his properties before marriage is no biggie and in and equitable distribution state would be done without the pre-nup. (for example if his house from before marriage is worth $100k at the time of marrige he would keep the $100k value of the house and divide any increase in value during the course of the marraige. So if the house is now worth $120k she would be entitled to $10k of that value)