On the one hand, they undoubtedly play an important role in promoting economic efficiency. The standard form contract significantly reduces transaction costs by excluding buyers and sellers of goods and services from negotiating the many details of a sales contract each time the product is sold. In India, Leonine contracts are generally considered unscrupulous contracts (although not all Leonine contracts are unacceptable contracts) and can be cancelled. The 199th Law Commission report (2006) on “UNFAIR (PROCEDURAL – SUBSTANTIVE) TERMS IN CONTRACT” addresses this issue. The abuse can be procedural or material. However, standard form contracts are ubiquitous in India and, especially in the digital age, standard form contracts are used much more often than any other form. They may be final if an appropriate notification has been made and the conditions are not inappropriate.  Unfair clauses in unsealed agreements are often struck down.  Although these types of contracts are not in themselves illegal, there is potential for unscrupulousness.
In addition, in the event of ambiguity, such ambiguity is resolved against the party who writes the language of the contract. Section 3 of the Abusive Terms of Contract Act 1977 limits the ability of the author of consumer or model contracts to design clauses that would allow him to exclude liability in a so-called exclusion clause – the law does not in itself make ineffective provisions in other areas that appear “unfair” to the layperson. If a contract is negotiated, the provisions of the act would probably not apply – the law protects against many things, but openly making a bad deal is not one of them. As a general rule, the Common Law treats standard standard contracts like any other contract. The signature or any other objective desire to be legally bound binds the signatory to the treaty, whether he reads or understands the terms. However, the reality of using standard forms means that many legal systems have developed specific rules for them. In general, in the event of ambiguity, the courts will interpret standard standard contracts against the proferentem (against the party that developed the contract), since that party (and only that party) was able to design the contract to eliminate ambiguities.