But, in reality, are the Agreements equitable and fair?. Are they often not one sided?. It would seem so at the individual level. It often is the case that advantages are loaded in favour of the stronger between the two. Rather than appreciating the duties and responsibilities of each, it is more for protection of one against another. I wish to point out here certain glaring differences:
A student is bound by school or college agreement against misbehaving. But what about donations demanded by the institutions? What about partiality shown by the Institute that is expected to give free and unbiased knowledge.
Similarly an Organisation, in its employee agreements lists out various clauses for an employee in terms of work days, financial implications on certain situations etc. But the clause on working hours,exploitation, favoritism are left deliberately vague or in complete favour of the Organisation. Many a clauses are at the 'discretion' of the Organisation, but individual discretion is ignored.
Often the individual has no choice but to sign on the Agreements even though he finds them unreasonable. A common refrain is that ' it is a standard document'. A standard document' drafted by the Institution or Organisation favourable to it?
Recently our central Government enacted a Model Tenancy Act which gave guidance on model rental agreements between the parties involved. This, I felt, is a free and fare Agreement model. Similarly, the Government or the Legal community should come out with model Agreements for employment (Labour Ministry), for studies ( Education Boards & UGC), for purchase-sale ( Ministry of Consumer affairs) etc. which would set the tone for a more equitable and fair Contractual terms. more