Consumer Protection Through Civil-Law Tools
Consumer protection in Georgia rests on two layers: the special legislation on consumer rights, and the norms of the Civil Code that regulate standard contract terms. This page is about the second layer — the rules through which a consumer escapes impossible or unfair terms, and defends their interests in credit relationships. The special statute governs consumer rights separately; in practice, however, the civil-law mechanisms are often exactly the instruments with which a concrete dispute is won in court.
Article 342 of the Civil Code defines standard contract terms as conditions pre-formulated in advance, intended for multiple use, which one party — the offeror — imposes on the other, and through which rules differing from or supplementing the statutory norms are established. Where the parties have defined the terms in detail through negotiation, those terms are not standard terms, and directly agreed terms take precedence over standard ones. For consumers this definition matters because much of the consumer market — telecom, energy, insurance and credit contracts — is built precisely on standard forms that the customer cannot negotiate.
Unusual Provisions — What the Consumer Could Not Foresee
Article 344 of the Civil Code provides one of the most effective protective mechanisms: provisions of standard contract terms which, by their form, are so unusual that the other party could not have reckoned with them do not become a constituent part of the contract. This means that however visible the signature of the consumer on the document, a particularly unexpected provision has no legal effect.
The practical value of this norm is that it attacks the unread fine print: if a clause is such that an ordinary consumer would not even have expected its existence, the offeror cannot rely on it. In litigation the court assesses the form of the provision, its placement in the contract, and whether the particular consumer could realistically have taken it into account. A clause buried in a footnote, formulated unusually and shifting a burden unexpected for the market, is a prime candidate for exclusion from the contract.
Invalidity of Terms Contrary to Good Faith
Article 346 of the Civil Code gives broader protection: a standard contract term is void, despite its inclusion in the contract, if it is detrimental to the other party contrary to the principles of trust and good conscience. In assessing this, the circumstances under which the terms were included in the contract, the mutual interests of the parties and other factors are taken into account.
Under this norm invalidity does not depend on whether the clause was unexpected — it is enough that it fails the standard of good faith. In consumer disputes this criterion is often decisive: the term imposed on the consumer and its consequences may prove incompatible with the fair balance that a conscientious party would strike between mutual interests. Terms that unilaterally favour the offeror at the consumer’s expense, in a market where the consumer has no realistic choice, are precisely what this provision targets.