I haven't taken Contracts yet, but I understand that the court may rescind a one-sided contract, which this certainly was.
The way the law now stands and the way judges apply it, the marriage contract itself amounts to a one-sided contract. It's the only one I can think of that judges do not take a dim view of.
True, but since she received "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in assets in the divorce according to the pre-nup, then I wouldn't consider it to be one-sided. She's already leaving the relationship being worth vastly more than when she came into it.
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.