In sum, wrongdoing, consent, unjust enrichment, and policy are all at work in unconscionability decisions. Waddams' principal point is that this characteristic of judicial decision making repeats itself across the various domains of private law. After reading all of the examples, the reader cannot help but come away from Dimensions of Private Law suspicious of any classificatory system of private law. But, assuming Waddams is correct, what are the implications of the general failure of private-law categorizations? II. Questions to Pursue A. What Accounts for the Popularity of Categorizing Private Law? Undoubtedly, analysts believe in the process of categorizing law for many reasons. For mple, Waddams himself does not deny that at least some cases fit nicely within one category or another and that mapping can sometimes contribute to our understanding. Categorizing also sometimes helps guide courts and usefully restricts judicial prerogatives and imagination return to these subjects in the next subsection. Here I would like to focus on another important reason, one that theorists often may overlook Law is supposed to be clear, definite, and hence predictable, so that people can plan their business and personal lives. 2 Further, law should be objective and resistant to manipulation that 31 See infra notes 42-53, and accompanying text Hillman, Richness, supra note 10, at 1618 In sum, wrongdoing, consent, unjust enrichment, and policy are all at work in unconscionability decisions. Waddams' principal point is that this characteristic of judicial decision making repeats itself across the various domains of private law. After reading all of the examples, the reader cannot help but come away from Dimensions of Private Law suspicious of any classificatory system of private law. But, assuming Waddams is correct, what are the implications of the general failure of private-law categorizations? II. Questions to Pursue A. What Accounts for the Popularity of Categorizing Private Law? Undoubtedly, analysts believe in the process of categorizing law for many reasons. For example, Waddams himself does not deny that at least some cases fit nicely within one category or another and that mapping can sometimes contribute to our understanding. Categorizing also sometimes helps guide courts and usefully restricts judicial prerogatives and imagination. I return to these subjects in the next subsection.31 Here, I would like to focus on another important reason, one that theorists often may overlook. Law is supposed to be clear, definite, and hence predictable, so that people can plan their business and personal lives.32 Further, law should be objective and resistant to manipulation that 31 See infra notes 42-53, and accompanying text. 32 Hillman, Richness, supra note 10, at 161