Plate ix in print

The Boilerplate

the standard form, the contract of adhesion, the fine print no one reads and no one can bargain; consent in the age of the mass contract.

The person who standardizes the bargain also assigns its risks.

— the argument of this plate, after Kessler (1943)

The contract arrives already written. The price may be prominent, the service familiar, the button inviting; behind them lies a second transaction, concerning the loss if the service fails, the means of ending the relationship, and the place where a dispute will be heard. The buyer can accept the package or seek another, while the seller has already decided how the package is composed. This is the standard form, and where the stronger party presents it on substantially nonnegotiable terms, the contract of adhesion. Its importance begins with that division of authority. Choosing to obtain the service, understanding its conditions, and having a hand in writing them are different accomplishments. The form can record the first while leaving the other two slight. To understand the bargain, we must follow both the work standardization saves and the power it gives the person who standardizes.

Repeated dealings give a business good reason to prepare its terms once. A thousand separately negotiated agreements require a thousand occasions for drafting, explanation, and approval; a common form makes obligations easier to administer and risks easier to compare. Kessler's 1943 account recognized these economies alongside the stronger party's ability to dictate terms. Uniform language can coordinate the promises a firm makes with the processes through which it performs them. A repair service can train its staff around one warranty; an insurer can calculate exposure across a defined class of policies. Yet the same document determines which risks the business accepts and which it sends back to the customer. The saving from using one form therefore leaves a further question open: whose interests shaped the form? The convenience of repetition explains why terms are standardized. Their particular distribution of benefits and burdens depends on the choices made within that standard.1

1. Friedrich Kessler, “Contracts of Adhesion—Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract”, Columbia Law Review 43 (1943), pp. 631–633, distinguishes the economies and risk allocation of standardized contracts from the bargaining position that makes them adhesive. His broader argument about private lawmaking appears at pp. 640–642.

The distance between access to the words and attention to them can be measured, although each measurement has a setting. Bakos, Marotta-Wurgler, and Trossen followed the January 2007 browsing of 48,154 visitors to ninety software companies in a study published in 2014. Their principal estimate was that only one or two of every thousand retail software shoppers accessed the license agreement; most accesses were too brief for a complete reading. The sample concerned sites where opening the terms was possible but optional. A visit to a page established access, while understanding its legal consequences remained a further step. These findings give substance to the familiar unread form without turning every customer into an identical reader. They also leave room for information acquired through prior experience, advice, or reputation. The measured weakness was in a particular channel of scrutiny: shoppers examining the offered license before choosing the product.2

2. Yannis Bakos, Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, and David R. Trossen, “Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention to Standard-Form Contracts”, Journal of Legal Studies 43 (2014), pp. 1–5, 10–13, 19–22, and 32–33. The observations concern January 2007; the study distinguishes access from informed reading and expressly leaves the efficiency of the terms and other disciplining mechanisms unresolved.

A customer can have a sensible reason to leave a consequential term unread. Suppose that reading and comparing a warranty costs the customer six in time and effort, and can avoid a loss of one hundred only in an event with probability one in a hundred. For a risk-neutral customer able to switch costlessly after reading, the expected protection is one. Spending six to obtain it would reduce the customer's expected return by five. Across ten thousand such transactions, the potential losses nevertheless amount to ten thousand in expectation. The private decision to economize on attention leaves a large aggregate stake. Change the probability to one in five, and the expected protection becomes twenty: reading now earns fourteen net of its cost. The example explains a choice under specified beliefs and alternatives. Its conclusion changes with the stakes, the cost of comprehension, and the possibility of acting on what is learned.3

3. The numbers are illustrative, with risk neutrality, correct probabilities, an avoidable loss, and no switching cost. Expected gains from reading are 0.01 × 100 − 6 = −5 and 0.20 × 100 − 6 = 14. Bakos and colleagues, pp. 4, 7, and 32–33, distinguish evidence of little reading from a conclusion that the choice to remain uninformed is irrational.
⁂

Competition can improve the form when customers' decisions make its quality worth supplying. Consider a warranty worth fifteen to a buyer and costing six to provide. Removing it while cutting the price by two leaves the buyer thirteen worse off and the seller four better off; together they lose nine. Fully informed buyers comparing otherwise identical offers would value the protection more than its cost, leaving room for a seller to supply it profitably. When buyers compare only the posted price, that reward may be absent. Now let the same protection cost twenty. Removing it and lowering the price by seventeen gives the buyer two and the seller three: the resources released exceed the protection's value by five. A shorter warranty can therefore represent either a loss of valuable protection or an efficient adjustment. Reading the clause alone cannot distinguish the two. Its cost, value, price, and effect on buyers' choices must be read together.4

4. These are separate illustrative comparisons with unchanged product quality, no effects on outsiders, and monetary valuations of protection. Transfers through the price cancel in combined surplus. The first removal changes joint value by 6 − 15 = −9; the second by 20 − 15 = 5. An informed minority can influence terms offered to others only where sellers have sufficient reason to retain those buyers and offer a common package.

The legal act of agreeing also has to be distinguished from the economic act of studying the bargain. In Berman v. Freedom Financial Network in 2022, the Ninth Circuit considered websites whose small gray notices referred to terms containing arbitration clauses. It held that the notices and the users' clicks on continuation buttons failed to establish the required assent. The inquiry concerned reasonably conspicuous notice and conduct unambiguously manifesting agreement, under the state-law principles the court applied. It did not require proof that every contractual sentence had been negotiated. That distinction matters on both sides of the form. A page of terms can exist without having been effectively presented for acceptance; a clearly accepted form can still contain provisions whose consequences the customer never examined. Formation identifies whether a bargain was made. The next plate takes up the further limits on what the law will enforce.5

5. Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022), majority opinion, slip pp. 10–16. The majority found the same outcome under the California and New York rules before it; the concurrence preferred a California choice-of-law analysis. This is the decision's particular formation inquiry, separate from substantive review of an agreed term.

The standard form thus carries two achievements whose relationship must be examined: it makes repeated exchange manageable, and it assigns the rules of that exchange. Better notice can help a customer find those rules; clearer language can help the customer understand them; a genuine alternative can make understanding useful. Each improves a different part of the process. Where those supports are weak, the form's apparent completeness can conceal how little of its content was tested by the other party's judgment. Kessler's enduring question is about the authority exercised through this everyday document. Who writes, who can compare, who can refuse, and who can challenge the result? The signature or click is one event in that structure. The limits of the structure are the subject of The Limit.