The unequal bargaining power in law, economics and social sciences refers to a situation where one party in negotiation (negotiation power), treaty or agreement has more and better alternatives than the other party. As a result, one party has more power than the other to not oppose the agreement, and it is more likely that that party will obtain more favourable terms and give them more bargaining power (since they are better able to reject the agreement). Inequality of bargaining power is generally considered a violation of contractual freedom, resulting in a disproportionate degree of freedom between the parties and a place where markets fail. “It is now easy to see that in 1906, Parliament may have felt that the only way to give labour egalitarian bargaining power with capital was to grant it special immunities that the common law did not allow. Even now that the criteria have been corrected, it is easy to see that Parliament might think that a strike, reprehensible or not, should not be grounds for litigation and that industrial peace should be sought in another way. Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v. Macaulay  1 WLR 1308, 1316, according to Lord Diplock: “Adopting this attitude towards a party wishing to enter into a contract to receive goods or services is a classic example of superior bargaining power. “To the extent that the resulting reduction in production and distribution costs translates into reduced prices, the company as a whole ultimately benefits from the application of standard contracts… However, the use of contracts has another aspect that has become increasingly important. Typical contracts are generally used by companies with strong bargaining power. The weaker party that needs goods or services is often unable to buy on better terms, either because the author of the model contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial), or because all competitors apply the same clauses. Its contractual intention is only a more or less voluntary submission under conditions dictated by the strongest party, terms whose consequences are often vague, if not never understood. The Webbs felt that these factors all contributed to a systemic inequality of bargaining power between workers and employers. However, the first use of the term “inequality of bargaining power” seems to have been made by the British philosopher John Beattie Crozier in The Wheel of Wealth.
 The termination of membership does not exempt the Member from its debts, debts or obligations to the Corporation, including, but not only, its obligations arising from the wholesale contract between the member and the Corporation. However, it is not difficult to know which of the two parties, in all ordinary cases, will have the advantage of the litigation and will compel the other party to comply with its terms. The fewer masters can combine much more easily; and the law does not allow or at least prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of workers. We do not have parliamentary votes against a combination to reduce the price of labour; but much against the combination to increase it. In all these quarrels, the masters can last much longer. An owner, a farmer, a master builder, a trader, while they did not employ a single worker, could generally live a year or two of the stocks they have already acquired. Many workers could not live a week, few could live a month and barely a year without a job. In the long run, the worker may be as necessary for his master as his master for him; but the need is not so immediate.  If the bargaining power is still uneven, the notion of unequal treatment of bargaining power serves as a justification for the application of mandatory conditions in contracts by law or the absence of the application of a contract by the courts.
El Lebeny Axis, Al Haraneyah, Giza Egypt
Mobile: +02 0109 904 9501
Mail: [email protected]