Don’t Assume a “Standard” Contract Is Safe — Where That Word Hides Real Risk

The word “standard” is comforting. When an agent, broker or even another lawyer describes a contract as “standard”, people understandably relax. They hear “nothing unusual” or “nothing to worry about”. In conveyancing, though, “standard” is often used loosely. Many contracts that are described that way contain special conditions or variations that significantly change the risk for one party.

One reason is that different people have different reference points. To someone who works with a particular developer or agent regularly, a certain set of conditions may be “standard” for that developer’s contracts. To a buyer, those same clauses may be far from neutral. For example, provisions that favour the seller on default, variation rights, or early release of deposits may be normal in that context but still one‑sided.

Another issue is that even truly standard form contracts are designed as a starting point, not a complete fit for every scenario. They cannot anticipate every issue that arises with specific properties or parties. Assuming that a standard form requires no modification is like assuming a one‑size‑fits‑all garment will suit every body perfectly. It may cover the basics, but important details can be off.

Buyers and sellers can be discouraged from questioning clauses once they have been told “it’s the standard contract we always use”. They may feel that pushing back will be seen as unreasonable or will risk the deal. In reality, careful questions about how specific clauses work in your circumstances are a normal part of the process. If anything, they show that you are taking the transaction seriously.

Problems often emerge when a “standard” clause meets a non‑standard situation. A default clause that seemed academic suddenly matters when finance is delayed. A “standard” building and pest clause might not protect a buyer facing unexpected structural issues because its wording is more limited than they assumed. A “standard” adjustment clause might allocate costs, rates or levies in a way that surprises one party at settlement.

Sellers are not immune from these risks. They might sign a contract that looks familiar without noticing that certain warranties have been expanded, or that obligations regarding compliance or repairs are broader than in previous deals. Later, when a buyer raises a claim, the seller may discover that their contract exposes them to more than they realised, all under the banner of standard terms.

A healthier approach is to treat “standard” as a description, not a conclusion. When you hear it, it can be useful to respond in your mind with “standard for whom, and in what context?” The fact that a clause appears in many contracts does not automatically make it appropriate for you. What matters is what the clause does, not how often it is used.

What “standard” is very good at doing is closing down curiosity. Once that word is on the table, thoughtful clients can feel reluctant to ask further questions. Recognising that effect allows you to push past it. It is always reasonable to say, “I understand it’s standard, but can someone explain how it operates if X happens?” It is easier to have that conversation before you sign than to argue about assumptions after.

Declaration: This article is intended as general information only and is not legal advice. Because every property matter is different, you should obtain advice specific to your circumstances before making any decisions. To discuss your situation, contact JKA & Co Conveyancing for tailored advice.