Author(s): Nirmit Jadwani and Ravi Yadav

Abstract: The imbalance of bargaining power in standard form contracts often leads to inequitable agreements that mostly benefit dominant entities, including major enterprises, service providers, and financial institutions. These contracts, sometimes offered on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis, provide consumers and small businesses little bargaining opportunities, resulting in considerable contractual disparities. This study rigorously analyzes the judicial and legislative reactions to power imbalances in several jurisdictions, including India, the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Judicial bodies in several legal systems have intervened to nullify clauses considered unconscionable or unduly biased, so promoting a more equitable contractual environment. Legislative frameworks, such the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (India), the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (EU), and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (US), function as legal protections against exploitative corporate practices and shield vulnerable entities. This research employs secondary sources, including case law and legal literature, to evaluate the efficacy of judicial activism and legislative measures in rectifying these contractual disparities. A comparative review of international techniques highlights effective consumer protection tactics and regulatory enforcement systems. The results underscore that an integrated strategy merging judicial supervision with ongoing legislative modifications is crucial for guaranteeing justice, equality, and openness in contractual interactions.

DOI: 10.22271/2790-0673.2025.v5.i1c.183

Pages: 246-252 | Views: 163 | Downloads: 88

Download Full Article: Click Here