[reduce]

In many parts of Europe (among the countries I've worked) the written word of contracts is worshiped as the ultimate authority. What's "the right thing to do" means nothing by comparison. You sign, you're bound by it, unless you put up a massive legal fight. Not only that, but signed contracts are expected to be used vastly more than in the US.

It's a bit of a culture shock when you see the sharp difference in this respect from how the US treats contracts, at least it was for me.

On both sides you have people saying that the business world will collapse if you treat contracts the way that the other side is treating them. I'll refrain from saying which side I think is right, but I guarantee you that these differences are strong and real.

[scott_w]

I'm not sure what countries you've been in, but British culture is definitely not like that.

B2B transactions do have more emphasis on following the rules of the contract, as two businesses are seen as being on a more "even playing field".

B2C transactions, however, rely heavily on consumer protection legislations (Sale of Goods Act, Supply of Goods and Services Act, Unfair Contract Terms Act), which recognise that most consumers do not read contract terms at all. In addition, there are a number of regulators and public bodies whose sole purpose is to provide free legal advice, and to fight cases on behalf of the consumer. Hell, there's a ton of morning television dedicated to hunting down dodgy builders and shaming them publicly.

My point is that contracts aren't as integral to everyday life as you assume, and most people will freely sign them in the knowledge that any bad terms are mostly unenforceable.

[tehwalrus]

Indeed. Also, under British law, a contract is not enforcible if the person who accepted a signature knows that the contract's preconditions weren't met - for example, if you sign a safety waiver which says "I declare I have not been drinking" and you clearly have, the waiver is void and the fairground are up for damages if you hurt yourself on their ride.

[Swizec]

Sidepoint: ALL contracts I've ever signed, both in Europe and in US, and across oceans, have a clause that says "If anything in this contract was missed or is in violation of the law, the law prevails. The contract is ruled by laws of X country"

And really, both here and there, contracts are treated more like guidelines than actual rules. What you agree on with a handshake matters far more. Especially with contracts under 5 figures because enforcing them would be way too much hassle and in case anything goes wrong it's easier to just write them off as cost-of-doing-business and move on.

[mpweiher]

have a clause that says "If anything in this contract was missed or is in violation of the law, the law prevails. The contract is ruled by laws of X country"

Yeah, I've also seen this in many contracts. It's silly. The law prevails whether you write it in the damn contract or not. That's why it's The Law. (You can also try the opposite test: "If anything in this contract is in violation of the law, this contract prevails over the law" --> yeah, right)

[mortov]

It's not really silly at all. It is there for two reasons.

(1) The law requries it to be stated in contracts [at least partially because of (2) below].

(2) Case law develops and can mean that something in a contract was previously enforceable but due to a test case or other development, it is no longer enforceable. Rather than companies having to watch every test case go through the courts and have lawyers rewrite contracts every few weeks just in case something needs updated, the catch-all allows for a more reasonable update cycle with rewrites only happening when there is a significant change to legislation or a number of cases has resulting in significant numbers of terms being invalidated. Pending the rewrite, the term makes it clear any updates to legal interpretation are honored.

In the EU there is also a choice of venue available to consumers so often the 'rules of country X' are not so readily enforceable for companies when they deal with consumers across EU borders. But that's a whole other complicated area.

[mnw21cam]

Actually, the clause usually says that if any particular clause in the contract is deemed invalid under law, then the rest of the clauses are not also automatically invalidated. Like you say, stating that the law takes priority over the contract is a redundant statement.

[tomcorrigan]

Actually what most of those clauses are about is stating that only the contractual clauses that are inconsistent with the law are to be ignored, as opposed the entire contract being considered void.

[mpweiher]

Yes, that's a separate bit "Salvatorische Klausel" we call it.

However, I usually see this separately. For example (German):

"Es gilt das BGB". (The BGB is valid) -> No shit, sherlock.

[kitbrennan]

It is true for business contracts that the written word is considered the ultimate authority. The principle is called 'caveat emptor' which can be translated to 'buyer beware'; essentially a business that enters into a contract is expected to read that contract and consult legal advice.

That said, there is protection for consumer contracts. In the UK you have the Unfair Contract Terms Act that protects consumers against businesses attempting to discharge liability to negligence. Europe wide you have the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contract Regulations which prevents businesses from inserting onerous terms into contracts with consumers that are not 'individually negotiated' (eg. almost every contract that a consumer signs without using a lawyer).