n4 This court expressed a similar view in Inman v. Clyde Hall Drilling Company, 369 P.2d 498, 500 (Alaska 1962). In response to a claim that a contract provision was unconscionable, it was said:  

In the absence of a constitutional provision or statute which makes certain contracts illegal or unenforceable, we believe it is the function of the judiciary to allow men to manage their own affairs in their own way. As a matter of judicial policy the court should maintain and enforce contracts, rather than enable parties to escape from the obligations they have chosen to incur.

We recognize that 'freedom of contract ' is a qualified and not an absolute right, and cannot be applied on a strict, doctrinal basis. An established principle is that a court will not permit itself to be used as an instrument of inequity and injustice . . . . In determining whether certain contractual provisions should be enforced, the court must look realistically at the relative bargaining positions of the parties in the framework of contemporary business practices and commercial life. If we find those positions are such that one party has unscrupulously taken advantage of the economic necessities of the other, then in the interest of justice - as a matter of public policy - we would refuse to enforce the transaction. But the grounds for judicial  interference must be clear. Whether the court should refuse to recognize and uphold that which the parties have agreed upon is a question of fact upon which evidence is required. [footnotes omitted].