Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary (or consensual) obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences. Considerable controversy is still present over whether "iniquitous pressure" must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a voluntary obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract, it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant's control. One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy, where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept "inequality of bargaining power", while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965), termed the issue one of "unconscionability". Note that even though it is accepted that an "inequality of bargaining power" is relevant to the doctrine of undue influence, Lord Denning's broader dictum on a general equitable principle of an "inequality of bargaining power" was later rejected by the House of Lords in the 1985 case National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan. History James v Morgan (1663) 83 Eng Rep 323 refused to enforce contract calculating purchase price of a horse based upon 2 pence for the first nail in the horse's shoes, doubled for each of an additional 31 nails. Vernon v Bethell Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen (1751) 28 Eng Rep 82, 100, unconscionability "may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under a