Adhesion Contracts

(A Comparative Study)

Abstract

This study examined the adhesion contracts as a prominent form of contracting arising from economic development and the expansion of large corporations and service providers. Such contracts are characterized by an imbalance in bargaining power, as one party unilaterally determines the contractual terms in advance, while the other party is generally limited to accepting or rejecting them without a genuine opportunity for negotiation. The study aimed to clarify the concept and legal nature of adhesion contracts and to analyze the legal protection afforded to the adhering party, with particular emphasis on the judiciary’s authority to modify unfair terms and interpret ambiguous contractual provisions. It adopted a descriptive and analytical approach to examine relevant legal provisions and judicial applications, together with a comparative approach covering Qatari, Egyptian, and French laws. Finding included that the legal systems under comparison provide mechanisms intended to protect the weaker contracting party, particularly through judicial intervention in unfair contractual terms and the interpretation of ambiguity in favor of the adhering party. It concluded that the Qatari legal framework could be further developed by introducing an explicit statutory definition of adhesion contracts and strengthening judicial protection of the adhering party in order to promote contractual fairness and restore balance between contracting parties.