I mean, yes, ultimately, but a contract that's aiming to be deceptive or one that imposes extremely punitive measures isn't going to be legal. You could write a contract that says that you can at any point terminate the contract and the other side has to buy you a latest Lamborghini. Like, there's nothing illegal about that in itself, but if the paragraph about the Lamborghini is just mentioned once on page 178 of the contract and not advertised anywhere, almost certainly any court will find it null and void, because people who have their contracts terminated usually don't have to buy people cars. Not illegal but unfair, which makes it deceptive which makes it illegal.
Your example would likely be unenforceable because contract terms must provide _consideration_ for both parties, or an element of fairness in the real assets being exchanged. Requiring one party to purchase a Lamborghini at the sole discretion of the other provides no consideration for the former.
An example of consideration in a penalty clause like this is AT&T's failed acquisition of T-Mobile US, where the contract forced AT&T to pay $3 billion and give up wireless spectrum when they abandoned the deal. In this case, the consideration was T-Mobile's time and money spent entering the deal in the first place vs. the penalty to AT&T.
It's also worth noting that "unfair" and "deceptive" are not synonymous in their legal definitions. An unfair practice involves terms that are not beneficial to one party and are unreasonable to avoid, while a deceptive practice is one that misleads the party into accepting unreasonable terms.
Both - because there are laws against unfair contracts, especially when the unfair portion is only explained to the less advantaged party (the customer) in hidden tiny text.
