when used properly adhesion contracts save companies and customers time and the expense relating to obtaining contract advice from attorneys however soome aspects of adhesion contracts pose problems 
for example in certain cases electronic adhesion contracts signed online have been challenged in court because contract details were so difficult to access and review as a result electronic adhesion contracts must provide the accessibility of contracts that a consumer would receive and read offline 61often courts won t enforce browse wrap electronic contracts that require consumers to click through a number of links to find and read the various terms of a contract and agree to it however click wrap electronic contracts that simplify this process by efficiently providing all the text and a click to accept method in one place typically are upheld by courts 1enforceability of adhesion contractsfor a contract to be treated as an adhesion contract it must be presented as a take it or leave it deal this means that one party has no ability to negotiate with the party offering the contract adhesion contracts are subject to scrutiny that usually comes in one of two forms courts have traditionally used the doctrine of reasonable expectations to test whether an adhesion contract is enforceable under this doctrine specific parts of an adhesion contract or the whole contract may be deemed unenforceable if the contract terms go beyond or don t match what the weaker party would have reasonably expected whether a contract is reasonable depends on the prominence of its terms the purpose of the terms and the circumstances surrounding acceptance of the contract the doctrine of unconscionability has also been used in contract law to challenge certain adhesion contracts it is a fact specific doctrine arising from again equitable principles and specifically the idea of bargaining in good faith unconscionability shifts the focus from what the customer might reasonably expect to the motive of the supplier unconscionability in adhesion contracts usually comes up if there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one sided contract provisions combined with unreasonably oppressive terms that no one would or should accept 1simply put if the contract is exceptionally unfair to the signing party it can be declared unenforceable in court 7unconscionability is easier to argue if the supplier is making a significant profit from the agreement especially if the amount of profit is tied to the weaker party s lack of bargaining power some legal experts have pushed back on this approach as it has implications concerning the freedom of contract that s the legal concept that people can freely determine the provisions of a contract without government interference 