The concept of contract of adhesion originated in French civil law, but did not enter American jurisprudence until the Harvard Law Review published an influential article by Edwin W. Patterson in 1919.  It was then taken up by the majority of U.S. courts, notably after the California Supreme Court approved the membership analysis in 1962. See Steven v. Fidelity &Casualty Co., 58 Cal. 2d 862, 882 n.10 (1962) (explains the history of the concept).  Standard form contracts are agreements that use standardized, non-negotiated provisions, usually in pre-printed forms. These are sometimes referred to as “boilerplate contracts”, “membership contracts” or “Take it or leave it”.
The terms, often represented in the fine print, are designed by or on behalf of a party to the transaction – the party with superior bargaining power that regularly makes such transactions. With a few exceptions, the consumer`s conditions are not negotiable. Recognizing the consumer protection issues that may arise, many governments have adopted specific laws regarding model contracts. These are generally adopted at state level as part of general consumer protection legislation and generally allow consumers to avoid terms deemed inappropriate, although the specific provisions are very different. Some laws require notification for these clauses to be effective, others prohibit all unfair clauses (e.g. Victorian Fair Trading Act 1999.B). Standard form contracts are agreements that use standardized, non-negotiated provisions, usually in pre-printed forms. These are sometimes referred to as “boilerplate contracts”, “membership contracts” or “Take it or leave it”. When negotiating contractual terms, ensure that the terms of the contract are clearly defined and agreed upon by all parties. On the other hand, there is a potential for ineffective and even unfair conditions accepted by the signatories of these treaties. These conditions can be considered unfair if they allow the seller to avoid any liability or to unilaterally modify the conditions or terminate the contract.
 These conditions often take the form of jurisdiction selection clauses and binding arbitration clauses that may restrict or exclude a party`s access to justice; as well as lump-sum compensation clauses that set a limit on the amount that can be recovered or require a party to pay a specified amount. They can be ineffective if they put the risk of a negative result, such as for example. B a defective workmanship, on the buyer who is not in the best position to take precautions. U.S. courts have addressed the problem of shrinking film contracts in two ways. A number of cases follow ProCD v. Zeidenberg, which considered that such contracts were enforceable (e.g. B Brower v Gateway), and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which it found unenforceable. These decisions are divided on the question of zuse, the former being that only objective manifestations of the voice are necessary, while the latter require at least the possibility of a subjective voice.
Written contracts may consist of a standard agreement or a letter confirming the agreement. In Canada, exclusion clauses cannot be invoked in a standard contract if a seller knows or has reason to know that a buyer is wrong about its terms (Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning). While this type of contract is not illegal in itself, there is a potential for scruples. In addition, in case of ambiguity, this ambiguity is dissolved against proferentem, that is, . . .