Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.

You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.

If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable

I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.

The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.

I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.

How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?

I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.

Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.

If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable

I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.

The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.

I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.

How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?

I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.