Editing Standard form contract (section)

===United States===
====Generally====
Standard form contracts are generally enforceable in the United States. The [[Uniform Commercial Code]] which is followed in most [[U.S. state|American states]] has specific provisions relating to standard form contracts for the sale or lease of goods. Furthermore, standard form contracts will be subject to special scrutiny if they are found to be contracts of adhesion.

====Contracts of adhesion====
<!--  Commented out: [[Image:Parkingticketcontract.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Contract of adhesion on timekeeping ticket dispensed by vending machine at parking lot entrance {{pufc|Parkingticketcontract.jpg}}]] -->
The concept of the 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.<ref>Patterson, E., ''The Delivery of a Life-Insurance Policy'', 33 Harvard Law Review, 198 (1919); see also [[Friedrich Kessler]], ''Contracts of Adhesion — Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract'',  43 Colum. L. Rev. 629 (1943).</ref> It was subsequently adopted by the majority of American courts, especially after the [[Supreme Court of California]] endorsed adhesion analysis in 1962.  ''See'' ''Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.'', 58 Cal. 2d 862, 882 n.10 (1962) (explaining the history of the concept).<ref>[http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/58C2d862.htm Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1962) 58 C2d 862<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a "take it or leave it" basis, and give one party no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position. The special scrutiny given to contracts of adhesion can be performed in a number of ways:

*If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable. The reasonable expectation is assessed objectively, looking at the prominence of the term, the purpose of the term and the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the contract.
*Section 211 of the [[American Law Institute]]'s [[Restatement (Second) of Contracts]], which has persuasive though non-binding force in courts, provides:{{quote|Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement.}}This is a subjective test focusing on the mind of the seller and has been adopted by only a few state courts.
*The doctrine of [[unconscionability]] is a fact-specific doctrine arising from [[Equity (law)|equitable]]{{Citation needed|date=October 2011}} principles. Unconscionability in standard form contracts usually arises where there is an "absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them." (''Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.''<ref>472 S.E.2d 242, 254 (S.C. 1996) (**Note: this definition is only good law in South Carolina)).</ref>)

====Shrink wrap contracts====
Courts in the United States have faced the issue of [[shrink wrap contract]]s in two ways. One line of cases follows ''[[ProCD v. Zeidenberg]]'' which held such contracts enforceable (e.g. ''[http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rstaudt/classes/oldclasses/internetlaw/casebook/brower.html Brower v Gateway]''), and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc, which found them unenforceable. These decisions are split on the question of assent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of assent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective assent.