Why “Unfair” Clauses Are Still Enforceable Under the Contract and at Law
Many people assume that if a clause feels unfair, unreasonable, or one-sided, it cannot be enforced. In commercial contracting, the opposite is usually true.
1. Freedom of Contract
The core principle in most legal systems (common law + civil law) is freedom of contract. Parties are free to:
- allocate risks,
- impose obligations,
- set procedures and consequences,
- shift responsibilities,
- decide payment and entitlement structures.
As long as both parties agreed to the clause (even if one negotiated poorly), the law assumes the risk allocation was intentional.
Conclusion: A clause is enforceable even if harsh, even if it favours one party, and even if it would not be agreed to in a perfect world.
2. Courts Do Not Rewrite Contracts
Judges generally do not rescue parties from a bad bargain. Their job is to interpret and apply the contract, not redesign it.
A court will not say:
- “This clause is too strict — we’ll make it more balanced,” or
- “It feels unfair — let’s ignore it.”
If parties freely signed, courts presume the commercial terms reflect the bargain.
Conclusion: The clause stands unless it breaches a legal exception.
3. Only Specific Legal Grounds Can Invalidate a Clause
For an “unfair” clause to be unenforceable, it must fall into a recognised legal defect, such as:
a. Illegality
Clauses that violate statute, licensing laws, or public policy cannot be enforced.
b. Unconscionability
Extremely rare in commercial contracts. Requires:
- severe imbalance, and
- evidence of exploitation, and
- lack of meaningful choice.
Courts rarely apply this where both parties are businesses.
c. Statutory Prohibitions
Certain industries or consumer transactions may have laws banning unfair terms — BUT commercial construction contracts rarely fall under consumer protection laws.
d. Ambiguity interpreted against the drafter (Contra proferentem)
This does not void the clause — it merely interprets ambiguity against the party who drafted it.
Conclusion: Outside these narrow grounds, the clause is enforceable even if commercially unreasonable.
4. Commercial Parties Are Presumed to Understand What They Sign
In B2B contracting, courts assume:
- parties had legal advice,
- parties were capable of negotiating,
- parties intended to allocate risks as written.
Even if one party felt pressured, rushed, or did not fully read the document — that is not a legal defence.
Conclusion: Failure to review or understand the clause does not make it unfair at law.
5. Construction Contracts Are Built on Risk Allocation
Construction law specifically recognises:
- liquidated damages,
- notification time-bars,
- pay-when-paid clauses (in some jurisdictions),
- strict variation procedures,
- strict claim timelines,
- exclusive remedies.
These often feel unfair — but they are intentionally designed to shift risk.
The law respects this design unless it breaches statutory restrictions.
THE REALITY
Unfair clauses are enforceable because:
- The parties agreed to them.
- The law respects commercial bargains.
- Courts avoid interfering unless there is illegality or extreme abuse.
- Commercial entities are presumed to negotiate knowingly.
- “Unfair” is not the same as “unenforceable.”
THE PRACTICAL LESSON FOR CONTRACT MANAGERS
The time to fight an unfair clause is:
❌ NOT during the dispute ❌ NOT at final account ❌ NOT in arbitration
The only effective time is:
✅ Before signing — during contract review and negotiation.
✅As After signing it is too late.
After signature, the clause becomes part of the legal bargain and will always be enforced as written and agreed..