Concept and Judicial Treatment of Standard Printed Contracts
Abstract
Abstract Views: 0
To meet modern business requirements such as the digitalization of commercial activities, the extensive use of standard printed contracts has become unavoidable despite their tricky formulation, including obscure, illegible, and complex clauses that ordinary buyers rarely understand or read, often leading to commercial exploitation. The objective of this paper is to outline the concept of standard printed contracts, as executing such contracts results in provision of exemption clauses causing commercial exploitations. However, effective treatment through judiciary can help counter these abuses. This study adopts an analytical, qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive research methodology while considering the judicial interpretation and the legal safeguards available under both English and Pakistani laws. In conclusion, the paper finds that judicial treatment of standard printed contracts balances the need to uphold freely made contracts while protecting weaker parties from unfair terms. An effective judiciary can foster economic stability and development by providing an organized, timely and orderly mechanism for dispute resolution. While English law provides a rich body of case law on these issues, Pakistani law is gradually developing frameworks to address similar concerns.
Downloads
References
Abdul Rahim v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan, PLD 1997 Sindh 62___ (1997). https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTYwNjU1
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co. v. Malvern Fishing Co. Ltd. ___ (1983). https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/ailsa-craig-fishing-v-malvern-fishing.php
Akerib v. Booth (1961). https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ MelbULawRw/1969/5.pdf
Al Huda Hotels & Tourism Co. v. Paktel Ltd., CLD 2002 Karachi 218 ___ (2002). https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTI3ODAxY2Ztcy1kYzgz
Alison Ltd. v. Wallsend Shipway & Engineering Co. Ltd. 27 Ll L Rep 285 ___ (1927). https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=140540
Atiyah, P. S. (1995). An introduction to the law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Aziz, A. A., & Yusoff, S. S. A. (2010). Regulating standard form of consumer contracts: The legal treatment of selected Asian jurisdictions. Asian Journal of Accounting & Governance, 1, 105–123.
Beatson, J., & Burrows, A. (2020). Anson’s law of contract (31st ed.). Oxford University Press.
Boardman, M. E. (2006). Contra proferentem: The allure of ambiguous boilerplate. Michigan Law Review, 104(5), 1105–1128.
Burke, J. J. (2000). Contracts as a commodity: A nonfiction approach. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 24, 285–312.
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. v. The King, [1952] AC 192. ___ (1952). https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/canada-steamship-lines-ltd-v-the-king.php
CartoonStock. (n.d.). CartoonStock. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.cartoonstock.com
Ch. Maqbool Raza v. Ashfaq Ahmed, 2013 YLR SC (AJ&K). ___ (2013). https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTExODMzY2Ztcy1kYzgz
Chapelton v. Barry UDC, [1940] 1 All ER 356. ___ (1940). https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/chapelton-v-barry.php
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2002). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/279/889/505986/
Competition Commission of Pakistan. (2012). Show cause notice issued to M/s Indus Motor Company Ltd. (F. No. 1(45)/IM/C&TA/CCP/2012). https://appadminccp.cc.gov.pk/ccporders/feac62f3-e915-432d-b3b5-0f9a18165cdd_indus_motor_order.pdf
Cooper v. MRM Investment Co., 367 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2004). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1122568.html
Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co., [1951] 1 All ER 631. ___ (1951). https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/curtis-v-chemical-cleaning-and-dyeing.php
Ecocards v. Tekstir, Inc., 459 P.3d 1111 (Wyo. 2024). (Citing Durdhal v. National Safety Associates, Inc., https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914bacfadd7b04934793279
Eisenberg, M. A. (1995). The limits of cognition and the limits of contract. Stanford Law Review, 47, 211–243.
Faryal v. Nayatel (Pvt.) Ltd., PLD 2024 Islamabad 246. ___ (2024).
Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Ltd., [1973] 1 QB 400. ___ (2024). https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/D-016-0705?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
Grey v. Pearson, (1857) 5 HL Case 61. ___ (1857). https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/statutory-interpretation.php
Haji Abdul Karim v. Messrs United Bank Ltd., PLD 2000 Karachi 446. ___ (2000).
Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All ER 575. ___ (1963).
Hillman, R. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2002). Standard-form contracting in the electronic age. New York University Law Review, 77, 429–437.
Hollier v. Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd., [1972] 1 All ER 399. ___ (1972).
Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance Co. Ltd., [1954] 1 QB 247. ___ (1954).
Joshi, V. (1996). Standard form contracts in India, England and united states of America (A study of judicial and legislative development) [Doctoral dissertation, Maharashi Dayanand University]. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/106
Kessler, F. (1943). Contracts of adhesion--some thoughts about freedom of contract. Columbia Law Review, 43(5), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/1117230
L’Estrange v. F.Graucob Ltd., 2 KB 394. ___ (1934).
Leff, A. A. (1985). The Leff dictionary of law: A fragment. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1855–2255,
M/S Pak Telecom Mobile Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2012 PTD 1860 (2012).
Maersk Guiné Bissau SARL & Anor v Almar Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL, EWHC 993 (Comm), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/662fe762f08f3770a113edbd, see also Adler v. Dickson 3 All ER 397, 1954 (2024).
Mariner, W. K. (1998). Standards of care and standard form contracts. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 15(1), 1–55.
Mendelssohn v. Normand Ltd., [1969] 1 WLR 139. ___ (1969).
Muhammad Shahnawaz v. Karachi Electric Supply PLC, C.S. 1579 (Sindh High Court 2011). ___ (2011).
Munir, D. M. (2014). Precedent in Pakistani law. Oxford University Press.
Niazi, L. A. (1991). Islamic law of contract. Research Cell, Dyal Singh Trust Library.
Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd., [1949] 1 All ER 127. ___ (1949).
Oughton, P. C. (1989). The common law of obligations. Butterworths.
Pace v. Hamilton Cove, (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2024/a-4-23.html
Parker v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1877) 2 CPD 416. ___ (1877).
PIAC & others v. Tanveer ur Rehman & others, PLD 2010 SC 676. ___ (2010).
Qureshi, A. A. (2004, September 30). Flaws in insurance laws. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1066514
R. v. Kirkpatrick, 2022 SCC 33, [2022] 2 SCR 480. ___ (2022). https://canlii.ca/t/jr3vx
Rakoff, T. D. (1983). Contracts of adhesion: An essay in reconstruction. Harvard Law Review, 96, 1177–1203.
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Yngvar Hansen-Tangen, [1976] 1 WLR 989. ___ (1976).
Richardson Spence & Co. v. Rowntree, [1894] AC 217. ___ (1894).
Slawson, W. D. (1971). Standard form contracts and democratic control of lawmaking power. Harvard Law Review, 84, 529–566.
Spurling Ltd. v. Bradshaw, [1956] 2 All ER 121. ___ (1956).
Thompson v. London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co., [1930] 1 KB 41. ___ (1930).
Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., [1971] 1 All ER 686. ___ (1971).
Trivedi, D. M. (2008). Validity of exemption clauses in contract: A comparative study of India and England [Doctoral dissertation, Saurashtra University]. http://etheses.saurashtrauniversity.edu/id/eprint/750
UBL v. Khalid Shafi & Co., 2003 CLD 1467. ___ (2003).
Utica City National Bank v. Gunn, 118 N.E. 608 (N.Y. 1918). ___ (1918).
Wallis, Son & Wells v. Pratt & Haynes, [1911] AC 394. ___ (1911).
Watkins v. Rymill, (1883) 10 QBD 178. ___ (1883).
World Bank. (2022). The development effectiveness of the use of Doing Business indicators, fiscal years 2010–2020. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/DoingBusinessEvaluation.pdf
Copyright (c) 2025 Shafqat Mahmood Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
LPR follow an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed the Copyright and Author Consent Form.
