It is obvious that the legislative purpose of Article 39 of the Chinese Contract Law is to. Does the use of standard terms violate the legislative purpose of offering a certain legal protection to the parties who are not in a powerful bargaining position in contract negotiation ?
The legislative purpose of art. 39 of the Chinese Contract Law is to provide legal protection to the parties in a weaker position, so that fairness can be maintained and the interest of parties can be balanced. Use of standard terms is to simplify the process of transaction so as to speed up the process of transactions. The key issue is how to strike the balance. If the standard terms are used without any restriction, the interest of the parties who do not have a powerful bargaining position will be jeopardized but on the other hand, if the obligation of reminding and explanation is over emphasized, the speed of transactions will be adversely affected which is obviously not intended by the law either.
Back
