There is no requirement that the terms of a contract be even-handed
The common law position is that parties are free to contract on whatever terms they like: if you agree to sell me your late model car for $1 that's a matter between the two of us.
The law allows you to make a bad bargain.
There is an equitable doctrine that allows the court to refuse to enforce unconscionable contracts or terms.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that "the central idea (of the) unconscionability doctrine is concerned not with ‘a simple old-fashioned bad bargain "… but with terms that are 'unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party.'" In other words, courts will not enforce contracts that are "overly harsh," "unduly oppressive," or "so one-sided as to shock the conscience."
However, I would be extremely surprised if the terms you are upset about rising to the level of unconscionability.
The basic test of unconscionability, as expressed in official comment 1 to section 2-302, is:
whether, in the light of the general commercial background and the
commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved
are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances
existing at the time of the making of the contract. . . .The principle
is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise. . . and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power.
They seem to be dealing with risk allocation and moving risks that are normally on the lender to the buyer or requiring the buyer to waive statutory rights and warranties - there is nothing illegal in that unless the law has a "no contracting out" provision. Some laws do and some laws don't. Some laws may not allow contracting out in consumer transactions but may allow them in business transactions.
You seem to be talking about some sort of equipment financing arrangement. As such, if you don't like the deal, there's a bank down the street with a different deal.
US law recognises that once there is a contract, the parties have to act in good faith to ensure each party gets the benefit of the bargain they made but there is no such requirement in negotiating that bargain. If you can use your economic strength to get a better deal, that's called capitalism.