Undue influence could occur if one party exerts significant pressure on the other party to sign the contract. This could mean that the parent party is making false promises or trying to convince the other party to sign the agreement. The reformulation also includes a separate and unscrupulous provision in § 208, “Unscrupulous contract or clause”, which largely allows a court to restrict the application of an unscrupulous clause or contract to avoid an unscrupulous outcome. The UCC also has unscrupulous rules for leases. For example, in Minn it is said. Stat. § 336.2A-108: The doctrines of lack of scruples and unfair terms are a fundamental tool for the protection of the weakest parties and in particular consumers. However, there is a need for countries to put in place more objective, effective and robust judicial and administrative mechanisms to achieve this goal. Consumer protection laws alone are not sufficient to prevent the inclusion of unscrupulous or unfair terms in a contract.

It is therefore necessary for laws to be accompanied by swift and effective administrative and judicial procedures that ensure effective consumer protection. This article showed how civil and common law countries have developed and recognized parallel legal instruments to protect the weaker party of a contract from manifestly unequal and unfair terms imposed by the stronger party. This article, despite their different legal origins and traditions, noted several similarities between these instruments. In this sense, this intellectual exercise can be a useful tool for possible future international harmonization of the relevant rules of treaty law.125 A treaty can be unscrupulous in one of the following circumstances: the speed at which the world is evolving and advancing has brought multiple economic and social changes to our society. One of the clearest examples of these transformations is how people contract when buying goods and services. We have gone from a period when the content of a contract has been negotiated individually by both parties to a period when only one of them imposes it, the party that holds the bargaining superiority. This situation led to the creation of a contractual model known as accession treaties1, so called by the French scientist Raymond Saleilles.2 Given the great power enjoyed by one of the parties in determining the rights and obligations of the treaty, it became necessary to develop mechanisms that limit this power. One of these mechanisms is the adoption of legal doctrines that aim to avoid the unlimited and abusive exercise of this unequal power by restricting the autonomy of the will and the contractual freedom of the parties.3 In these developments, two key doctrines can be identified: the doctrines of lack of scruples and unfair terms.4 These doctrines constitute legal instruments that prevent contractual injustice and protect the parties “from exaggeration”.5 The the first is implemented in common law countries such as the United States and the second in countries that are part of the civil legal tradition, such as Colombia. Considering that the doctrines belong to different legal families that respond to different historical roots, philosophical ideologies and legal approaches, the purpose of this article is to identify the similarities existing between the doctrines by analyzing the American and Colombian experiences on the subject. This article is divided into three main parts. Part 1 and Part 2 contain a brief description of the main elements of the doctrine of lack of scruples and unfair terms.

These statements are based on the jurisprudence of the U.S. and Colombian courts. Part 3 of this article analyses individually the common characteristics of the two teachings. These include the influence of the doctrine of abuse of rights, the unilateral drafting of contractual terms by the party with the greatest bargaining power, the existence of a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations assumed by the parties and the use of control mechanisms to prevent the inclusion of unscrupulous and unfair contracts or clauses. The lack of scruples is established by examining the circumstances of the parties at the time of conclusion of the contract, such as. B their bargaining power, age and mental capacity. Other issues may include lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances related to the negotiation process. Unscrupulous behavior is also found in acts of fraud and deception, where the deliberate misrepresentation of facts deprives someone of valuable property. If one party exploits another unscrupulously, the act may be treated as criminal fraud or as a civil act of deception. MODIFICATION OR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, the rental agreement may, in addition to the rights and remedies provided for in this Article, contain rights and remedies in the event of delay or in lieu of such rights and remedies and may limit or modify the amount of damage to be compensated under this Article. (2) The use of a remedy under this section or the lease agreement is optional, unless the remedy is expressly agreed as exclusive. Where the circumstances result in an exclusive or limited remedy which is lacking in its essential purpose or which lacks scruples in the provision of an exclusive remedy, the remedy may be exercised in accordance with this Article. (3) Consequential damages may be liquidated or otherwise limited, modified or excluded in accordance with section 336.2A-504, unless the limitation, modification or exclusion is restricted. .