Short answer. No. Contracting parties are free to set whatever terms they find convenient, but only up to four outer limits: the stipulation must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A term that crosses any of those lines is unenforceable no matter how clearly it was signed.

What the law says

The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Civil Code, Article 1306 — Autonomy of Contracts (Freedom to Stipulate). Read the full provision →

Freedom is the rule; the limits are the exception

The starting position is generous. Parties may write whatever terms they deem convenient, and courts do not rewrite a bargain simply because one side got the worse end of it. A deal that turns out to be unprofitable, or a price that later looks too low, is not by itself a legal defect. This is why "but it was unfair" is rarely a winning argument on its own. What the law polices is not the wisdom of the bargain but its content: whether a particular clause runs into one of the four barriers the article names. Everything else is left to the parties, and to the consequences they agreed to bear.

What the four barriers actually mean

Contrary to law covers stipulations that defeat a mandatory or prohibitory rule — you cannot contract around a protection the statute makes non-waivable. Morals and good customs reach agreements whose object is itself disgraceful, or which trade on something the community does not treat as merchandise. Public order concerns the safety and orderly functioning of society. Public policy is the broadest and the most frequently invoked: it strikes at clauses that, whatever their form, undermine an interest the State protects for everyone's benefit, such as terms that surrender access to legal remedies wholesale or that licence future wrongdoing in advance.

What happens to an offending clause

The practical question is usually not whether a clause is objectionable but how much it takes down with it. Often only the offending stipulation is treated as without effect, while the rest of the agreement continues to bind — particularly where the clause is severable and the parties would still have made the deal without it. But where the illicit term is the very heart of the arrangement, or where the whole purpose of the contract is the forbidden thing, there is nothing left to enforce. Note too that an invalid clause does not become valid because both sides consented enthusiastically, because it was drafted by a lawyer, or because it has been performed for years without complaint.

Before you sign, and what this article does not decide

If a clause worries you, the useful exercise is to ask which of the four limits it might offend and to say so in writing before signing rather than after. Keep drafts and messages; how a term was presented often matters later. Understand also the boundary of this provision. It governs the content of what you agreed to. It does not answer whether you truly consented, whether you were deceived or pressured, whether the contract needed a particular form, or whether the other side has breached. Those are separate doctrines, and whether any of them helps depends entirely on the documents and facts of the specific transaction.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.