Standard terms: template, generator, or lawyer?

On 4 June 1996, the first Ariane 5 lifts off from Kourou: Europe’s new launcher, ten years in development, four research satellites on board. The control software is proven. The alignment module comes from Ariane 4, where it worked flawlessly for years. Why rewrite what works?

For 36 seconds, the flight goes as planned. Then the inherited module processes a velocity it never saw on Ariane 4, because the new rocket is much faster in this phase of flight. A number overflows. The backup system does not help. It runs the same software with the same flaw and fails for the same reason. The nozzles swing to full deflection, and at second 39 the launcher breaks apart and self-destructs.

The remarkable part is in the ESA inquiry report. It traces the failure to a design error in the software. The error only took effect on the new rocket. After lift-off, the module simply kept running without any purpose (“as soon as the launcher lifts off, this function serves no purpose”), and it did so only because Ariane 4 had needed it that way. The code was proven, but written for a different context.

This is exactly how generic standard terms fail, not immediately and not visibly, but the first time it matters, and then completely. The fact that a set of clauses worked elsewhere for years says nothing about whether it works for your business. Why German standard-terms law reaches every pre-formulated clause, and how strictly it reviews them, is set out in the entry article “Standard terms in B2B: freedom of contract is the exception”.

Do I need standard terms at all?

Yes, for three reasons. First, legal certainty. Without your own terms, the statute governs, and the statute knows neither a liability cap in your favor, nor an extended retention of title, nor your payment and delivery terms. Second, efficiency. With standard terms, you standardize day-to-day business instead of negotiating every single order.

The third reason, defense, is the least known. If only the other side puts forward standard terms and incorporates them validly, they apply with every clause working against you. Exceptions include clauses that fail content review. Only when you put forward your own terms does a collision arise. In it, conflicting clauses cancel each other out, and the neutral statute takes their place (on the “battle of forms,” see the article “Battle of forms: Whose terms apply?”). Having no standard terms is therefore not a neutral position. In case of doubt, it means the other side’s terms apply.

Four sources, three fail predictably

Most companies get their standard terms from one of four sources: a template, a generator, a lawyer (external or their own in-house counsel), or the internet.

Diagram: the same business outline three times. The template covers it with a standard rectangle that covers too much and too little, with a red gap at the highest step. The generator covers it with a dashed, randomly cut rectangle, leaving a red gap at the edge. The lawyer’s cover is congruent with the outline: made to measure, no gaps.

outline = your business

templatethe average: too much and too little

generator/AIa random cut: gaps remain

lawyermade to measure

The fourth source is quickly dealt with. It means copying another company’s terms, often from the same industry. That saves no money and creates a risk nobody can assess. You adopt, sight unseen, the flaws and risks of someone else’s business and the state of the law its terms were written for. On top of that comes a copyright risk. Nobody knows in advance whether the copy will work out. That leaves three serious sources. Two of them cost little and fail predictably. The choice is not “cheap and fast versus expensive and thorough” but between two documents. One reflects the average. The other fits your specific case and survives judicial content review.

The template: built for the average

A template has to fit thousands of companies at once. So it governs what they all have in common, and that is the average. Your industry, your customer and supplier structure, your liability profile, and your international business do not appear in it. That is no criticism of the publishers; templates, as a rule, state in the text itself that they are no substitute for advice on the individual case. It is in the nature of the thing.

Templates are also static. They reflect the state at the time of their publication, while the case law (national and international) and the statutes keep moving. The template stays as it was. Its user never learns of the change.

Legally, there is no grandfathering. The clauses of an adopted template are your own standard terms from the first use. They are subject to full content review. “It came from the trade association” is not an argument in court. Among association templates, the law exempts only the VOB/B, the German standard terms for construction work. Where it is incorporated as a whole without any change, a court does not review its individual provisions in dealings between businesses (Section 310(1) sentence 3 of the German Civil Code, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). Every other template is the Ariane 4 software – proven, cheap, and built for a different system.

The generator: no judgment, no responsibility

Generators, these days mostly AI-based, sound like the contemporary answer. You answer a few questions and download a finished set of terms. Three properties disqualify them for anything beyond standard business.

First, AI-based tools are not deterministic. The same input can produce one text today and a different one tomorrow. For a document whose entire value lies in its reliability, that is a design flaw, not a detail.

Second, there is no judgment on the facts. The generator asks for what you already know. It does not investigate how your contracts are actually concluded, what can go wrong in your supply chain, or which clause covers your specific risk. In my experience, the most expensive gaps are the ones nobody asked about.

Third, nobody stands behind the result. If the clause falls in court, the generator is not liable. The responsibility stays entirely with you.

This is not an objection to the technology; I work with AI every day. But a text produced without looking at the specific facts, and without anyone standing behind it, is not legal drafting. Whether it holds up in a dispute is a matter of chance.

Why generic text falls in court

That template and generator terms fail is not lawyer’s rhetoric but follows from three rules of German law on standard terms. And a fourth risk comes from outside.

Content review applies between businesses too, and it is stricter than almost everyone believes

An empirical study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice showed that companies systematically underestimate the reach and the strictness of this review.¹ Only the description of the goods or services and the price escape the content review. Even they escape it only in their narrow core. See the article “Why contracts fail on the statement of work”. Practically every other pre-formulated clause is subject to review – in my assessment, 95 percent of all contract clauses. A court also reviews clauses that restrict or modify the promised performance. And every clause must be clear and comprehensible.² Hardly anyone realizes that clauses in court can fail simply because they lack transparency (Section 307(1) sentence 2 BGB), that is, they are not clear and comprehensible. Whether they also unreasonably disadvantage the contract partner does not even come into play anymore.

That this strictness is politically contested does not help you in a dispute. A general reform of the law on standard terms in business-to-business dealings has been demanded for years and is being debated again, among other things with a view to the new commercial courts (see the article “Commercial Courts in Germany”); it is not in force.³ Since 15 December 2023, Section 310(1a) BGB has exempted certain financial transactions between businesses from the content review under Section 307 BGB. For all other contracts between businesses, the provision changes nothing. You have to draft under the law as it stands today.

What is prohibited toward consumers is an indicator between businesses

If a clause falls under the prohibited-clause catalog of Section 309 BGB in consumer business (B2C), that indicates in business between companies (B2B) as well that it unreasonably disadvantages the contract partner and is therefore invalid.⁴ The case itself involved a sale on a pre-printed form “excluding any and all warranty,” a classic from the used-car trade. The clause fell in its entirety, and the seller was liable as if no exclusion had ever been agreed.

If the clause falls, it falls completely

German courts do not rescue an overreaching clause by trimming it back to what would just barely be permissible; there is no validity-preserving reduction. The statute takes the clause’s place (Section 306(2) BGB). The limitation of liability that covers one case too many ends up limiting nothing at all.

Invalid clauses can draw warning letters from competitors

The dispute with your contract partner is not the only risk. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has treated the use of invalid standard terms as a breach of professional diligence. It classified the prohibitions in Sections 307, 308 No. 1, and 309 No. 7(a) BGB as market-conduct rules under the German Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG), formerly under Section 4 No. 11 and today under Section 3a UWG. Anyone using such clauses can therefore be served a warning letter (Abmahnung) by competitors and qualified institutions, without any dispute at all, simply because the terms are published, for instance in an online shop.⁵ This is settled for consumer business; for purely business-to-business dealings the Court left the question open. In my view, much speaks for its applying there too: Section 307 BGB applies directly between businesses, and Section 3a UWG protects other market participants as well as consumers. Relying on invalid clauses being harmless in B2B is a risk. In the decided case, a trader had given a cease-and-desist undertaking after a warning letter and kept using the clause; that cost him EUR 10,200 in contractual penalties.

How predictably the very clauses found in templates and generator output fail is documented across this series:

• “To the extent permitted by law? Not a good idea.”: where the legal position is clear, the popular rider makes the clause non-transparent and therefore invalid, in B2B too.
• “No individual agreement”: the pre-formulated confirmation that the parties negotiated individually is itself an invalid standard term.
• “No oral side agreements exist. But they do!”: the plain entire-agreement clause is valid but merely restates the presumption, which applies anyway, that the contract is complete; the individual agreement always prevails.
• “All-Caps Clauses in Commercial Contracts”: capitalization in the US style is no substitute for valid drafting under German law.

And even the perfect text does not apply by itself

Even a flawless template would be worthless unless it becomes part of the contract. Standard terms have to be incorporated into every single contract, and in international business that means transmitting them rather than linking to them, in the right language, with an answer to the other side’s conflicting terms (in detail: the article “How to incorporate standard terms internationally”).

A case from overseas trade shows how hard this stage is. A carrier had squeezed its terms onto the back of the form so tightly that they were readable only with a magnifying glass, and even then only with effort. They never became part of the contract, and the jurisdiction clause buried in them fell with them – against a merchant, and with a clause customary in the trade.⁶ The clause was not surprising, but it was illegible. More on this in the article “All-Caps Clauses in Commercial Contracts”.

Incorporation is not a text but a business process. It means implementation in the existing routines of procurement and sales, and integration into the other legal documents – from the purchase order and the order confirmation to contracts and the code of conduct. That is precisely why no template and no generator can solve it. The real work only begins after the download.

What the lawyer does differently

Standard terms from a lawyer cost more because the lawyer assesses your specific case and builds a system that supports the text. The work has three levels.

Built for your specific case

Terms of sale and terms of purchase follow your industry, your customer and supplier structure, and your corporate structure, not the average. A distributor needs the extended retention of title, a plant manufacturer needs different liability provisions than a software house, and a company selling through commercial agents faces different incorporation questions than the operator of a webshop. The clause that is right there is wrong here.

International validity and enforceability

This is where generic text fails unnoticed and at the highest cost. The usual jurisdiction clause reads confidently. Against a contract partner outside the EU, however, you often obtain nothing but a judgment nobody there will enforce. That is because with many states that are among Germany’s most important trading partners, there is no treaty on the recognition of court judgments. The map and country table in the article “Arbitration or litigation?” show which states those are. In my webinars I put it this way: a judgment I cannot enforce against my contract partner abroad is worthless. The clause only serves its purpose once it fits the market. Outside the EU, that is often an arbitration clause, whose award is enforceable in more than 170 states under the New York Convention.

The arbitration clause is itself a standard-terms clause. In a contract with a foreign element, its validity depends primarily on the law the parties chose for it. Failing that, the law of the seat of arbitration decides. Where German law applies, an arbitration agreement as such does not, according to the BGH, unreasonably disadvantage the contract partner.⁷ Parties who agree on arbitration do not, however, escape the law on standard terms along the way. A contractor sought a declaration that arbitration was inadmissible because the contract expressly waived Sections 305 to 310 BGB, exposing it to a possibly excessive contractual penalty. The application failed. The validity of the arbitration agreement is, as a rule, independent of the validity of the parties’ agreements on the procedure. The arbitration clause stood.⁷ Whether the waiver itself holds, the BGH did not decide; that is for the arbitral tribunal. A large part of the literature considers it valid, Pfeiffer at least where it was individually agreed or does not take the contract partner by surprise; some authors reject its validity.⁸ Choosing the seat and the governing law therefore also decides how far the review of standard terms reaches. That belongs at the start of the drafting, not in the boilerplate.

Apart from the statutory exceptions, there are only three ways out of content review, and each has its price. The first is genuine negotiation: a clause that is individually agreed leaves content review behind – but the requirements are demanding, and a pre-formulated confirmation that the parties negotiated is precisely what does not help (see “No individual agreement”). The second is choosing another law, often Swiss law. It only works where the case genuinely reaches abroad; in purely domestic business the parties remain bound by mandatory German law under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I Regulation), and that includes the law on standard terms.⁹ The third is the arbitration agreement, with the uncertainty described above. None of these is a clause you copy out of a template.

The rest of the international business needs the same precision: a deliberate decision on the CISG instead of the reflexive opt-out, the Incoterms clause that matches the actual supply chain, a tactical but validly drafted choice of law, and incorporation as a practiced process. The articles “CISG: advantages and disadvantages for German exporters”, “Incoterms® 2020: practical overview”, and “No exclusion of private international law” cover the first three points in detail.

The system after the document

Standard terms are not a project with an end date. The lawyer’s work includes what comes after delivery: monitoring the case law and updating the terms, training procurement and sales (because that is where incorporation is decided in day-to-day business), reflecting compliance requirements on both the purchasing and the sales side, from supplier codes of conduct to sanctions clauses (see the article “‘No re-export to Russia’: compliant export contracts”) and pass-through of supply-chain duties, and a maintained, documented clause library instead of a PDF in a folder.

Does it pay off? A single unnoticed clause defect costs more in a dispute than the entire project, in money and in the business relationship, which rarely continues afterwards. That is a matter of experience, not statistics.

The decision at a glance

When a template is enough

So that this piece does not end up as self-promotion, I add the honest cross-check. There are settings in which a carefully read, current template is defensible. Five conditions must come together:

• purely domestic business,
• standard services,
• small volumes,
• manageable liability exposure,
• no compliance requirements from contract partners.

Anyone using a template there should follow three rules:

• Choose a current, serious source. A good template states its as-of date; a template without a date, or with an as-of date more than two years old, is not an option.
• Understand every clause instead of copying it.
• Delete the known failure clauses, above all “to the extent permitted by law,” the entire-agreement clause, and the blanket exclusion of liability.

Above that threshold is anyone who sells or buys internationally, carries substantial liability risks, or genuinely depends on their clauses when it matters. If even one of the five falls away, you no longer save anything with the template. You only postpone the loss.

Conclusion

Ariane 5 failed not because of new software but because of proven software in the wrong context. With templates and generators, you get text that worked elsewhere and was not written for your case. Whether it works for your business is something you find out only when it matters.

Frequently asked questions

Are standard terms from a generator legally reliable?

Nobody stands behind them. A generator knows neither your business model nor your supply chain, and AI-based tools are not deterministic. The same input can produce different texts. Nobody tests whether a clause survives judicial content review on your specific facts, and the responsibility stays entirely with you. For a standard transaction with low risk, the result may be adequate; you should not rely on it.

May I copy another company’s standard terms?

I advise against it. Standard terms can be protected by copyright, so copying them can trigger cease-and-desist claims. Above all, someone else’s terms govern someone else’s business: their products, their risks, their processes. Once adopted, they are your own standard terms from the first use (Section 305(1) BGB) and are subject to full content review, with every flaw of the original.

What does it cost to have a lawyer draft standard terms?

I work on fixed fees: the price is set before the work begins and depends on the value for your company, the complexity of the business model, the degree of internationality, and the topics to be covered. In my experience, a single unnoticed clause defect, say an invalid limitation of liability, costs more than the entire project once a dispute arises.

How often should standard terms be reviewed?

On triggering events, and at regular intervals. A trigger is any change to the business model, such as new products, new markets, or a new sales channel, and any relevant court decision; the courts keep striking down clauses that passed as safe only yesterday. Beyond that, a fixed review rhythm keeps the terms from becoming outdated unnoticed. I recommend a review every two years.

Notes

1. Leuschner, NJW 2016, 1222. ↩

2. BGH, judgment of 5 October 2017 – III ZR 56/17, paras. 15 f., 27. ↩

3. Berger/Reiss, NJW 2025, 1311; skeptical: Kraner, RInPrax 2025, 150. ↩

4. BGH, default judgment of 19 September 2007 – VIII ZR 141/06, the so-called “Gleichschritt” (lockstep) case law. ↩

5. BGH, judgment of 31 May 2012 – I ZR 45/11. ↩

6. BGH, judgment of 30 May 1983 – II ZR 135/82. ↩

7. BGH, order of 9 January 2025 – I ZB 48/24, paras. 20, 31, 40, 42. ↩^{1 2}

8. Pfeiffer, NJW 2025, 866, paras. 11, 24; references to both views in fn. 6 of that article. ↩

9. Pfeiffer, NJW 2012, 1169. ↩

Reference: Poleacov, P. (2026). Standard terms: template, generator, or lawyer?. INN.LAW. https://inn.law/en/perspectives/standard-terms-template-generator-lawyer/

---