When two companies negotiate a contract, typically what happens is this. One team of lawyers drafts the contract. They send it to the other lawyers. Both business teams consult their lawyers, and the lawyers update the contract with their desired changes. Then the first company comments on desired changes and they negotiate.
The result, after perhaps many rounds of negotiation, is often a far different contract than was originally proposed.
That is NOT what happens with consumer terms and conditions agreements, or cell phone contracts. There, the company's lawyers draft a contract that is as favorable to them as is legal. The consumer does not have the legal team or negotiating power to push back: their choices are to sign, or to walk.
These quite different contract processes are worth thinking about. Is this the way we, as a society, want contract law to be used?
What you're describing is just an adhesion contract, and it doesn't happen only with consumers. For instance, around here the supermarkets have a lot of bargaining power over their suppliers, and make use of rather lopsided adhesion contracts (e.g. the supermarket decides whether, how much, and for how long to discount the product and the supplier pays for the discount).
Sometimes I wish that severability clauses were not allowed in contracts of adhesion so that lawyers would be forced to only include terms that were actually enforceable or else have the entire contract become invalid. Obviously it wouldn't work very well if even a small mistake made in good faith could invalidate an entire contract, but the problem of companies hoodwinking customers with unenforceable terms has gotten out of hand.
When two companies negotiate a contract, typically what happens is this. One team of lawyers drafts the contract. They send it to the other lawyers. Both business teams consult their lawyers, and the lawyers update the contract with their desired changes. Then the first company comments on desired changes and they negotiate.
The result, after perhaps many rounds of negotiation, is often a far different contract than was originally proposed.
That is NOT what happens with consumer terms and conditions agreements, or cell phone contracts. There, the company's lawyers draft a contract that is as favorable to them as is legal. The consumer does not have the legal team or negotiating power to push back: their choices are to sign, or to walk.
These quite different contract processes are worth thinking about. Is this the way we, as a society, want contract law to be used?