Abstract
The protection of contractual equality is of great importance within the private law framework, as its violation will lead to a breach of contractual fairness. To avoid such a result, civil legislation limits freedom of contract and sets a reasonable scope for participating parties, thus, taking a step towards the restoration of contractual equality and justice. As an example, we can cite a contract with standard terms. The main prerequisite for limiting freedom of contract is content control when intervention (influence) occurs directly in the content of the contract. In case of standard terms, the intervention is aimed at limiting the content of multiple-use contracts. Therefore, the realization of freedom of contract in the same dose, as it is possible in other cases, does not take place under standard terms. The principle of private law - everything that is not prohibited by the law is allowed, is applied to standard terms in a limited manner, which reinforces the need to control the content and the scope of its existence. The subject of the research is not the standard terms of the contract in general; rather the unusual provisions of the standard terms of the contract provided for in Article 344 of the Civil Code of Georgia (hereafter CCG), which is "negative control of inclusion in the contract" and, accordingly, the correction of the result according to which the term "by itself" would have been valid if it were not unusual.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
