However, in the case of credit cards (and other oligopolies), for example, the consumer while having the 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.
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, however, means that many common law jurisdictions have developed special rules with respect to them.
The Uniform Commercial Code which is followed in most American states has specific provisions relating to standard form contracts for the sale or lease of goods.
In Canada, exclusion clauses 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 (Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning).
The Supreme Court found a standard arbitration clause requiring a gig worker to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce void due to unconscionability in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020).
[15] In recognition of the consumer protection issues which may arise, many governments have passed specific laws relating to standard form contracts.
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.
[citation needed] These provisions do not apply in contracts for the international sale of goods, i.e. where the parties' places of business are in the territories of different states.
[16]: Section 26 The Standard Form Contract Act 1982 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 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.
In July 2013, Russian Dmitry Agarkov won a court case against Tinkoff Bank after he altered the standard form contract he had received in the mail.