In comparison, an unacceptable contract is not illegal on its merits, but not applicable because of the circumstances in which the contract was entered into by the parties. In other words, a totally legal contract could be considered unacceptable because of the way one party obtained the signature of the other party. In this example, the operating manual contains a term indicating that the franchisee must pay $500 to the franchisor when a customer files a complaint about the franchisee. This term in the operating manual should be of concern, as it unduly penalizes the franchisee and is probably not necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the franchisor. The term allowing the franchisor to vary the minimum number of cupcakes the franchisee must sell should raise concerns, as it allows the franchisor to unilaterally complicate the contract. Such a clause should result in a significant imbalance in the rights of the parties and will probably not be reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the franchisor. According to the ACL, a clause requiring a contractor to award compensation or liability for circumstances beyond his control could be considered abusive. When deciding whether a clause is abusive, a court must verify the transparency of the clause as well as the general rights and obligations of each party to the contract. The Tribunal may also consider other relevant issues.

The concept of a good contract means that the two people enter into the agreement of their own free will and no one has been forced to sign. If there is a coercion, the court will not consider the complaint. For example, a person cannot be forced to sign a contract with threats or violence. This decision has lessons for all consumer-oriented companies that use standard contracts. In particular, the judgment shows that even in situations where a client has agreed to be bound by certain conditions, these conditions cannot yet be applicable. This case should endeavour to verify their standard consumer contracts to ensure that their conditions are fair and sufficiently transparent and to anticipate the likely extension of the abusive duration provisions of contracts, in order to cover certain business contracts to trade. With respect to the authorized agreements of credit representatives, we have found some conditions that are probably considered unfair, either because they are cumbersome, unilateral or go further than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the licensee. There is unlikely to be any concern about this term.

However, if the franchise agreement requires the franchisee to comply with the operating manual, the operating manual is part of the franchise agreement. This means that the terms of the operating manual can be declared abusive and cancelled. A small company enters into a contract with a moving company for an office move. A contractual clause stipulates that the moving company assumes no liability for losses resulting from the move, including loss resulting from the negligence of the moving company. “Unjust contractual conditions” was the hot topic of 2016.