1260:
liability for the execution of the contract to a third party, unreasonable obligation to use the services of a third party or to limit, in any way, the choice of contracting third parties, denial of legal remedy, unreasonable limitations on contractual remedies or setting unreasonable conditions for the consummation of the remedy, denying or limiting the right for legal procedures, exclusive rights to decide on the location of the trial or arbitration, obligatory arbitration with unilaterally control over the arbitrators or the location of the arbitration and setting the holder of the burden of proof contrary to common law. The act also establishes a
988:
ability to shop around may still have access to only form contracts with like terms and no opportunity for negotiation. Also, as noted, many people do not read or understand the terms so there might be very little incentive for a firm to offer favorable conditions as they would gain only a small amount of business from doing so. Even if this is the case, it is argued by some that only a small percentage of buyers need to actively read standard form contracts for it to be worthwhile for firms to offer better terms if that group is able to influence a larger number of people by affecting the firm's reputation.
920:
form of, but are not limited to, forum selection clauses and mandatory arbitration clauses, which can limit or foreclose a party's access to the courts; and also liquidated damages clauses, which set a limit to the amount that can be recovered or require a party to pay a specific amount. They might be inefficient if they place the risk of a negative outcome, such as defective manufacturing, on the buyer who is not in the best position to take precautions.
1264:, chaired by a district judge and consists of a maximum of 12 members, appointed by the justice minister, including an acting chairman (also a district judge), civil servants (no more than a third) and, at least, 2 consumer organization representatives. The court holds hearings regarding appeals against standard form contract clauses or approval of a specific standard form contract at the requests of a provider.
144:
972:
question the terms, saying that they are "just something the lawyers want us to do" or that they are wasting their time reading them. If the purchaser is at the front of a queue (for example at an airport car rental desk) there is additional pressure to sign quickly. Finally, if there has been negotiation over price or particular details, then concessions given by the salesperson may be seen as a
36:
983:
many suppliers of the good who can potentially offer different terms (see below), although even this is not always possible (for instance, a college freshman may be required to sign a standard-form dormitory rental agreement and accept its terms, because the college will not allow a freshman to live off-campus).
1294:
after he altered the standard form contract he had received in the mail. The bank, failing to notice the changes, accepted the application and gave him an account based on the amended contract. The judge ruled that the bank was legally bound to the contract it had signed. Agarkov is further suing the
1242:
render ineffective provisions in other areas which to the layman appear "unfair". Where a contract has negotiated the provisions of the act likely would not apply – the law protects from a lot of things but openly making a bad bargain is not one of them. These provisions do not apply in contracts for
1062:
If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable. The reasonable expectation is assessed objectively, looking at the prominence of the term, the purpose of the
1000:
As a general rule, the common law treats standard form contracts like any other contract. The signature or some other objective manifestation of intent to be legally bound will bind the signor to the contract whether or not they read or understood the terms. The reality of standard form contracting,
982:
If the good which is being sold using a contract of adhesion is one which is essential or very important for the purchaser to buy (such as a rental property or a needed medical item) then the purchaser might feel they have no choice but to accept the terms. This problem may be mitigated if there are
971:
Standard form contracts are signed at a point when the main details of the transaction have either been negotiated or explained. Social pressure to conclude the bargain at that point may come from a number of sources. The salesperson may imply that the purchaser is being unreasonable if they read or
919:
On the other hand, there is the potential for inefficient, and even unjust, terms to be accepted by signatories to these contracts. Such terms might be seen as unjust if they allow the seller to avoid all liability or unilaterally modify terms or terminate the contract. These terms often come in the
1272:
Standard conditions in
Lithuania shall be such provisions that are prepared in advance for general and repeated use by one contracting party without their content being negotiated with another party, and which are used in the formation of contracts without negotiation with the other party. Standard
1259:
defines a set of depriving conditions that may be canceled by a court of law, including unreasonable exclusion or limitation of liability, unreasonable privileges to unilaterally cancel, suspend or postpone the execution of the contract and to change any fundamental charges or pricing, transfer of
1204:
deals with it. The unfairness can be procedural or substantive. However, standard form contracts are ubiquitous in India and especially in the digital age, standard form contracts are used much more frequently than any other form. They can be legally valid if reasonable notice has been given and if
1057:
For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a "take it or leave it" basis, and give one party no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position. The special scrutiny given to contracts of adhesion can be performed in a number
964:
The most important terms to purchasers of good are generally the price and the quality, which are generally understood before the contract of adhesion is signed. Terms relating to events that have very small probabilities of occurring or which refer to particular statutes or legal rules do not seem
938:
and written in complicated legal language which often seems irrelevant. The prospect of a buyer finding any useful information from reading such terms is correspondingly low. Even if such information is discovered, the consumer is in no position to bargain as the contract is presented on a "take it
1091:
principles. Unconscionability in standard form contracts usually arises where there is an "absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person
991:
Another factor that might mitigate the effects of competition on the content of contracts of adhesion is that, in practice, standard form contracts are usually drafted by lawyers instructed to construct them so as to minimize the firm's liability, not necessarily to implement managers' competitive
1213:
In recognition of the consumer protection issues which may arise, many governments have passed specific laws relating to standard form contracts. These are generally enacted on a state level as part of general consumer protection legislation and typically allow consumers to avoid clauses that are
1295:
bank for failing to comply with the terms he had added to the contract, which it had unwittingly agreed to by signing the contract. Agarkov's lawyer, Dmitry
Mihalevich said – "They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it'."
987:
Some contend that in a competitive market, consumers have the ability to shop around for the supplier who offers them the most favorable terms and are consequently able to avoid injustice. However, in the case of credit cards (and other oligopolies), for example, the consumer while having the
1121:), and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc, which found them unenforceable. These decisions are split on the question of assent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of assent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective assent.
883:
between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.
1354:
in
Djibouti. In cross-examination, Ali explained that by "leonine" she meant that the provisions in the contract ... were one-sided, preserving the rights of DP World (the port operator) to the detriment of the Republic. In the
1273:
conditions prepared by one of the parties shall be binding to the other if the latter was provided with an adequate opportunity of getting acquainted with the said conditions (Article 6.185. Standard conditions of contracts,
405:
945:
Often the document being signed is not the full contract; the purchaser is told that the rest of the terms are in another location. This reduces the likelihood of the terms being read and in some situations, such as
1028:
has specific provisions relating to standard form contracts for the sale or lease of goods. Furthermore, standard form contracts will be subject to special scrutiny if they are found to be contracts of adhesion.
992:
decisions. Sometimes the contracts are written by an industry body and distributed to firms in that industry, increasing homogeneity of the contracts and reducing consumers' ability to shop around.
1077:
Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement.
1001:
however, means that many common law jurisdictions have developed special rules with respect to them. In general, in the event of an ambiguity, the courts will interpret standard form contracts
1277:). A consumer shall have the right to claim within the judicial procedure for invalidity of conditions in a consumer contract that are contrary to the criterion of good faith (Article 6.188).
1238:) limit the ability of the drafter of a consumer or standard form contract to draft clauses that would allow them to exclude liability in what is termed an exclusion clause. The act does not
1214:
found to be unreasonable, though the specific provisions vary greatly. Some laws require notice to be given for these clauses to be effective, others prohibit unfair clauses altogether (e.g.
410:
1304:
939:
or leave it" basis. Coupled with the often large amount of time needed to read the terms, the expected payoff from reading the contract is low and few people would be expected to read it.
950:, can only be read after they have been notionally accepted by purchasing the good and opening the box. These contracts are typically not enforced, since common law dictates that
624:
673:
798:
365:
1177:) gave some support for the position that notice of exceptional terms is required for them to be incorporated. However the defendant successfully appealed to the
1200:
In India leonine contracts are generally deemed unconscionable contracts (though not all leonine contracts are unconscionable contracts) and are voidable. The
916:
substantially by avoiding the need for buyers and sellers of goods and services to negotiate the details of a sale contract each time the product is sold.
783:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
965:
important to the purchaser. This further lowers the chance of such terms being read and also means they are likely to be ignored even if they are read.
1043:
published an influential article by Edwin W. Patterson in 1919. It was subsequently adopted by the majority of
American courts, especially after the
1725:
1706:
1430:
53:
843:
1007:(against the party that drafted the contract), as that party (and only that party) had the ability to draft the contract to remove ambiguity.
1350:
qualified lawyer and board member, argued that there were "leonine aspects" to a joint venture agreement for the development of the port of
1483:
1135:
1464:
The Devil in the
Details: The Interrelationship Among Citizenship, Rule of Law and Form-Adhesive Contracts by Zev J. Eigen :: SSRN
100:
1189:
1148:
1133:
in a standard form contract cannot be relied on where a seller knows or has reason to know a purchaser is mistaken as to its terms (
1071:
119:
1618:
72:
429:
393:
79:
1407:
1227:
1157:
1117:
422:
57:
1339:
A "leonine contract" is a contract where one party faces a possibility of loss but no possibility of gain. For example, in
1037:
The concept of the contract of adhesion originated in French civil law, but did not enter
American jurisprudence until the
912:
On one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of promoting economic efficiency. Standard form contracting reduces
1600:
909:
There is much debate on a theoretical level whether, and to what extent, courts should enforce standard form contracts.
688:
278:
86:
1562:
1044:
173:
1351:
947:
836:
787:
708:
434:
68:
1713:(A Comparative Study from the Perspective of European Union Law), PDF (by Attorney Gintautas Ĺ ulija, LL.M., LL.M.)
46:
1777:
1192:(COAG) agreement this legislation is now part of each jurisdiction's (state's or territory's) Fair Trading laws.
683:
642:
554:
1466:
490:
203:
1448:
1641:
1169:
Standard form contracts have generally received little special treatment under
Australian common law. A 2003
1080:
This is a subjective test focusing on the mind of the seller and has been adopted by only a few state courts.
1185:
1178:
1021:
812:
663:
472:
322:
1722:
1067:
388:
273:
249:
231:
1703:
1427:
1215:
1772:
1667:
1630:(PDF or DOC or ZIP available) Also refer to each State and Territory Fair Trading Department's websites.
1446:
Standard-Form
Contracting in the Electronic Age by Robert A. Hillman, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski :: SSRN
1274:
829:
816:
805:
678:
668:
612:
236:
1723:
Russian Man Who Got Bank to Sign
Homemade Credit Card Contract Now Suing Them for Not Following Terms
1584:
1500:
Goodman, B (1999). "Honey, I Shrink-Wrapped the
Consumer: The Shrink-Wrap Agreement as an Adhesion".
1341:
1106:
976:
which socially obliges the purchaser to respond by being co-operative and concluding the transaction.
696:
533:
383:
262:
168:
163:
93:
1403:
1111:
452:
343:
208:
188:
1567:
1140:
1039:
1003:
931:
897:
738:
701:
543:
515:
481:
374:
359:
353:
327:
1310:
1205:
the terms are not unreasonable. Unfair terms in non-negotiated agreements are often held void.
1202:
199th Law Commission report (2006) on "UNFAIR (PROCEDURAL & SUBSTANTIVE) TERMS IN CONTRACT"
1550:
472 S.E.2d 242, 254 (S.C. 1996) (**Note: this definition is only good law in South Carolina)).
1523:
1231:
1152:
1084:
892:
595:
584:
305:
254:
245:
226:
183:
1320:
1130:
913:
874:
618:
505:
500:
462:
457:
300:
283:
1729:
1710:
1470:
1452:
1434:
1391:
1235:
1170:
621:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
510:
240:
217:
1691:
1614:
1315:
1243:
the international sale of goods, i.e. where the parties' places of business are in the
815:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
756:
647:
578:
563:
311:
158:
1766:
547:
295:
268:
198:
17:
1181:
so currently there is no special treatment of standard form contracts in Australia.
1411:
1404:
1700, 1701, 1702, 1703 Sir William Hope of Kirkliston vs. William Gordon of Balcomy
1291:
1088:
751:
746:
733:
524:
178:
143:
1539:
1244:
589:
495:
400:
317:
35:
1596:
1734:
1360:
1144:
1025:
935:
791:
774:
193:
895:. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved
1356:
1020:
Standard form contracts are generally enforceable in the United States. The
742:
417:
1054:, 58 Cal. 2d 862, 882 n.10 (1962) (explaining the history of the concept).
1201:
1364:
1347:
942:
Access to the full terms may be difficult or impossible before acceptance
880:
572:
467:
290:
135:
1392:
Republic of Djibouti & Ors v Boreh & Ors (2016) EWHC 405 (Comm)
538:
1063:
term and the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the contract.
1563:
Recent Case: Supreme Court of Canada Targets Standard Form Contracts
1463:
1074:, which has persuasive though non-binding force in courts, provides:
1445:
1188:
has been enacted in Australia at the national level, and due to a
1756:
973:
923:
There are a number of reasons why such terms might be accepted:
728:
1528:
Contracts of Adhesion — Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract
1367:) (1700), an alleged agreement between them is described as "a
1290:
In July 2013, Russian Dmitry Agarkov won a court case against
718:
29:
1752:
Joint Contracts Tribunal for United Kingdom Building Industry
1704:
Standard Contract Terms in Cross-Border Business Transactions
1234:) and section 17 (in relation to standard form contracts in
1406:, Decision of the Lords of Council and Session reported by
979:
Standard form contracts may exploit unequal power relations
1751:
1305:
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
901:, i.e. against the party drafting the contract language.
808:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
1540:
Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1962) 58 C2d 862
1371:, where might have loss, but in no event any profit".
1105:
Courts in the United States have faced the issue of
811:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
60:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
625:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
1642:"Standard form of Contracts and the law in India"
1484:"THE NO-READING PROBLEM IN CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW"
1394:, published 2 March 2016, accessed 5 October 2020
1175:Toll (FGCT) Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Limited
1075:
887:While these types of contracts are not illegal
780:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1522:, 33 Harvard Law Review, 198 (1919); see also
1094:Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.
837:
8:
1115:which held such contracts enforceable (e.g.
817:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
844:
830:
131:
1087:is a fact-specific doctrine arising from
120:Learn how and when to remove this message
1520:The Delivery of a Life-Insurance Policy
1384:
1332:
1109:in two ways. One line of cases follows
927:Standard form contracts are rarely read
764:
716:
655:
634:
604:
562:
523:
480:
444:
373:
335:
216:
150:
134:
1686:
1684:
1139:). The Supreme Court found a standard
954:terms of a contract must be disclosed
613:Duty of honest contractual performance
1668:"Letter seeking comments from public"
1052:Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
1047:endorsed adhesion analysis in 1962.
801:of International Commercial Contracts
7:
1136:Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning
968:There may be social pressure to sign
58:adding citations to reliable sources
27:Type of contract between two parties
1738:, 8 Aug 2013. Retrieved 9 Aug 2013.
1615:"Competition and Consumer Act 2010"
1597:"Competition and Consumer Act 2010"
790:and other civil codes based on the
1666:SEBI, Forwards Market Commission.
1418:, p. 559, accessed 17 October 2020
1363:vs. William Gordon of Balcomy (or
25:
1640:Bag, Amartya (28 December 2014).
1190:Council of Australian Governments
1149:International Chamber of Commerce
1072:Restatement (Second) of Contracts
961:Boilerplate terms are not salient
1530:, 43 Colum. L. Rev. 629 (1943).
615:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
430:Enforcement of foreign judgments
394:Hague Choice of Court Convention
142:
34:
1621:from the original on 2011-05-05
1603:from the original on 2011-04-08
1257:Standard Form Contract Act 1982
1216:Victorian Fair Trading Act 1999
891:, there exists a potential for
45:needs additional citations for
1692:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1581:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
1228:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1158:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
423:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
1147:to litigate before the Dutch
797:5 Explicitly rejected by the
564:Quasi-contractual obligations
1369:societas seu pactum leoninum
1359:case of Sir William Hope of
1262:Standard Form Contract Court
870:take-it-or-leave-it contract
860:(sometimes referred to as a
1045:Supreme Court of California
948:software license agreements
1794:
1759:of the European Commission
1694:, accessed 19 January 2024
1482:Alan Schwartz, Ian Ayres.
1184:Since 1 January 2011, the
1024:which is followed in most
435:Hague Judgments Convention
958:the contract is executed.
786:4 Specific to the German
1561:
491:Anticipatory repudiation
241:unequal bargaining power
69:"Standard form contract"
1186:Australian Consumer Law
1022:Uniform Commercial Code
813:Uniform Commercial Code
788:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
473:Third-party beneficiary
445:Rights of third parties
323:Accord and satisfaction
1346:(2016), Zeinab Ali, a
1173:Court of Appeal case (
1079:
1068:American Law Institute
858:standard form contract
544:Liquidated, stipulated
389:Forum selection clause
274:Frustration of purpose
1344:et al. v Boreh et al.
1275:Lithuanian Civil Code
1247:of different states.
1107:shrink wrap contracts
1101:Shrink wrap contracts
1092:would accept them." (
1033:Contracts of adhesion
862:contract of adhesion,
806:Canadian contract law
174:Abstraction principle
18:Contracts of adhesion
1342:Republic of Djibouti
635:Related areas of law
534:Specific performance
384:Choice of law clause
349:Contract of adhesion
263:Culpa in contrahendo
169:Meeting of the minds
164:Offer and acceptance
54:improve this article
1281:Civil law countries
1112:ProCD v. Zeidenberg
1066:Section 211 of the
799:UNIDROIT Principles
573:Promissory estoppel
453:Privity of contract
406:New York Convention
366:UNIDROIT Principles
209:Collateral contract
204:Implication-in-fact
189:Invitation to treat
1728:2016-09-18 at the
1709:2016-03-04 at the
1502:Cardozo Law Review
1469:2011-03-07 at the
1451:2004-11-15 at the
1433:2007-05-08 at the
1141:arbitration clause
1040:Harvard Law Review
1004:contra proferentem
905:Theoretical issues
898:contra proferentem
619:Duty of good faith
516:Fundamental breach
482:Breach of contract
411:UNCITRAL Model Law
375:Dispute resolution
360:Contra proferentem
354:Integration clause
328:Exculpatory clause
1524:Friedrich Kessler
1232:England and Wales
1226:Section 3 of the
1153:unconscionability
1131:exclusion clauses
1085:unconscionability
996:Common law status
932:boilerplate terms
914:transaction costs
893:unconscionability
854:
853:
697:England and Wales
605:Duties of parties
596:Negotiorum gestio
585:Unjust enrichment
306:Statute of frauds
255:Unconscionability
227:Misrepresentation
184:Mirror image rule
130:
129:
122:
104:
16:(Redirected from
1785:
1778:Terms of service
1739:
1720:
1714:
1701:
1695:
1690:UK Legislation,
1688:
1679:
1678:
1672:
1663:
1657:
1656:
1654:
1652:
1637:
1631:
1629:
1627:
1626:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1593:
1587:
1578:
1572:
1571:
1570:2598 (2021).
1565:
1557:
1551:
1548:
1542:
1537:
1531:
1516:
1510:
1509:
1497:
1491:
1490:
1488:
1479:
1473:
1461:
1455:
1443:
1437:
1425:
1419:
1401:
1395:
1389:
1372:
1337:
1321:Terms of service
1118:Brower v Gateway
1083:The doctrine of
866:leonine contract
846:
839:
832:
674:China (mainland)
643:Conflict of laws
506:Efficient breach
501:Exclusion clause
301:Illusory promise
284:Impracticability
146:
132:
125:
118:
114:
111:
105:
103:
62:
38:
30:
21:
1793:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1763:
1762:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1730:Wayback Machine
1721:
1717:
1711:Wayback Machine
1702:
1698:
1689:
1682:
1670:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1650:
1648:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1624:
1622:
1613:
1606:
1604:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1579:
1575:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1538:
1534:
1518:Patterson, E.,
1517:
1513:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1471:Wayback Machine
1462:
1458:
1453:Wayback Machine
1444:
1440:
1435:Wayback Machine
1426:
1422:
1408:Sir John Lauder
1402:
1398:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1311:Hobson's choice
1301:
1288:
1283:
1270:
1253:
1224:
1211:
1198:
1171:New South Wales
1167:
1127:
1103:
1035:
1026:American states
1018:
1013:
998:
907:
850:
821:
693:United Kingdom
656:By jurisdiction
126:
115:
109:
106:
63:
61:
51:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1791:
1789:
1781:
1780:
1775:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1757:CLAB Data Base
1754:
1747:
1746:External links
1744:
1741:
1740:
1715:
1696:
1680:
1658:
1632:
1588:
1573:
1552:
1543:
1532:
1511:
1492:
1474:
1456:
1438:
1420:
1396:
1383:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1316:Non est factum
1313:
1308:
1300:
1297:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1269:
1266:
1252:
1249:
1223:
1222:United Kingdom
1220:
1210:
1207:
1197:
1194:
1166:
1163:
1126:
1123:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1081:
1064:
1034:
1031:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
997:
994:
985:
984:
980:
977:
969:
966:
962:
959:
943:
940:
928:
906:
903:
852:
851:
849:
848:
841:
834:
826:
823:
822:
820:
819:
809:
804:6 Specific to
802:
795:
784:
781:
778:
773:1 Specific to
770:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
754:
749:
736:
731:
723:
722:
714:
713:
712:
711:
706:
705:
704:
699:
691:
686:
681:
676:
671:
666:
658:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
648:Commercial law
645:
637:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
616:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
592:
587:
582:
579:Quantum meruit
575:
567:
566:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
551:
550:
536:
528:
527:
521:
520:
519:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
485:
484:
478:
477:
476:
475:
470:
465:
460:
455:
447:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
427:
426:
425:
415:
414:
413:
408:
398:
397:
396:
386:
378:
377:
371:
370:
369:
368:
363:
356:
351:
346:
344:Parol evidence
338:
337:
336:Interpretation
333:
332:
331:
330:
325:
320:
315:
312:Non est factum
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
287:
286:
281:
276:
266:
259:
258:
257:
243:
234:
229:
221:
220:
214:
213:
212:
211:
206:
201:
196:
191:
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
153:
152:
148:
147:
139:
138:
128:
127:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1790:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1737:
1736:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1669:
1662:
1659:
1647:
1643:
1636:
1633:
1620:
1616:
1602:
1598:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1574:
1569:
1568:Harv. L. Rev.
1564:
1556:
1553:
1547:
1544:
1541:
1536:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1515:
1512:
1507:
1503:
1496:
1493:
1485:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1460:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:Download Menu
1424:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1385:
1378:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1343:
1336:
1333:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1285:
1280:
1278:
1276:
1267:
1265:
1263:
1258:
1250:
1248:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1221:
1219:
1217:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1195:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1164:
1162:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1032:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1015:
1011:United States
1010:
1008:
1006:
1005:
995:
993:
989:
981:
978:
975:
970:
967:
963:
960:
957:
953:
949:
944:
941:
937:
934:are often in
933:
929:
926:
925:
924:
921:
917:
915:
910:
904:
902:
900:
899:
894:
890:
885:
882:
878:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
847:
842:
840:
835:
833:
828:
827:
825:
824:
818:
814:
810:
807:
803:
800:
796:
793:
789:
785:
782:
779:
777:jurisdictions
776:
772:
771:
769:
768:
763:
758:
755:
753:
750:
748:
744:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
720:
715:
710:
709:United States
707:
703:
700:
698:
695:
694:
692:
690:
687:
685:
682:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
654:
649:
646:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
633:
626:
623:
622:
620:
617:
614:
611:
610:
609:
608:
603:
598:
597:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
580:
576:
574:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
556:
553:
549:
548:penal damages
545:
542:
541:
540:
539:Money damages
537:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
522:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
450:
449:
448:
443:
436:
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
409:
407:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
392:
391:
390:
387:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
367:
364:
362:
361:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
318:Unclean hands
316:
314:
313:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
285:
282:
280:
279:Impossibility
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:Force majeure
267:
265:
264:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:public policy
247:
244:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
210:
207:
205:
202:
200:
199:Consideration
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:
145:
141:
140:
137:
133:
124:
121:
113:
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71: –
70:
66:
65:Find sources:
59:
55:
49:
48:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
19:
1773:Contract law
1733:
1718:
1699:
1674:
1661:
1649:. Retrieved
1645:
1635:
1623:. Retrieved
1612:Download at
1605:. Retrieved
1591:
1580:
1576:
1555:
1546:
1535:
1527:
1519:
1514:
1505:
1501:
1495:
1477:
1459:
1441:
1423:
1416:Fountainhall
1415:
1412:Fountainhall
1399:
1387:
1368:
1340:
1335:
1307:(ESIGN, USA)
1292:Tinkoff Bank
1289:
1271:
1261:
1256:
1254:
1239:
1225:
1212:
1199:
1183:
1174:
1168:
1156:
1151:void due to
1143:requiring a
1134:
1128:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1093:
1076:
1056:
1051:
1048:
1038:
1036:
1019:
1002:
999:
990:
986:
955:
951:
922:
918:
911:
908:
896:
888:
886:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
855:
752:Criminal law
734:Property law
689:Saudi Arabia
594:
577:
358:
348:
310:
261:
179:Posting rule
136:Contract law
116:
107:
97:
90:
83:
76:
64:
52:Please help
47:verification
44:
1675:Sebi.gov.in
1585:2020 SCC 16
1245:territories
1209:Legislation
1129:In Canada,
875:boilerplate
590:Restitution
401:Arbitration
1767:Categories
1735:Yahoo News
1625:2011-05-02
1607:2011-05-02
1379:References
1361:Kirkliston
1348:Djiboutian
1179:High Court
1145:gig worker
936:fine print
792:pandectist
775:common law
555:Rescission
463:Delegation
458:Assignment
246:Illegality
194:Firm offer
80:newspapers
1651:5 October
1646:iPleaders
1268:Lithuania
1165:Australia
1089:equitable
1058:of ways:
1016:Generally
794:tradition
664:Australia
511:Deviation
418:Mediation
151:Formation
1726:Archived
1707:Archived
1619:Archived
1601:Archived
1467:Archived
1449:Archived
1431:Archived
1365:Balcomie
1357:Scottish
1299:See also
1236:Scotland
1161:(2020).
930:Lengthy
881:contract
877:contract
757:Evidence
729:Tort law
702:Scotland
525:Remedies
468:Novation
291:Hardship
218:Defences
159:Capacity
110:May 2010
1677:. SEBI.
1583:,
1352:Doraleh
879:) is a
872:, or a
747:estates
679:Ireland
296:Set-off
237:Threats
232:Mistake
94:scholar
1566:, 134
1560:Note,
1508:: 319.
1286:Russia
1251:Israel
1240:per se
1125:Canada
956:before
889:per se
745:, and
743:trusts
717:Other
669:Canada
96:
89:
82:
75:
67:
1671:(PDF)
1487:(PDF)
1327:Notes
1196:India
765:Notes
739:Wills
721:areas
684:India
546:, or
496:Cover
101:JSTOR
87:books
1653:2019
1255:The
1230:(in
974:gift
868:, a
248:and
239:and
73:news
1414:in
1410:of
1218:).
1155:in
1070:'s
1049:See
952:all
719:law
56:by
1769::
1732:,
1683:^
1673:.
1644:.
1617:.
1599:.
1526:,
1506:21
1504:.
864:a
856:A
741:,
1655:.
1628:.
1610:.
1489:.
1096:)
845:e
838:t
831:v
123:)
117:(
112:)
108:(
98:·
91:·
84:·
77:·
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
