Final answer:
There is a trend towards protecting consumers from unreasonable fine print in contracts, with courts sometimes finding such terms unenforceable if they are deemed unconscionable, even without fraud. This reflects a greater emphasis on consumer protection, though the approach may vary by jurisdiction.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the legal enforceability of fine print, also known as the 'boilerplate' terms, in contracts. Traditionally, these terms are considered binding as long as they are part of a duly executed contract. However, in recent years, there has been a growing sentiment that fine print that is overly burdensome, hidden, or unfair should not be binding on the injured party, especially if the terms are not reasonably expected or disclosed. Courts may rule that terms within the fine print that are considered to be unconscionable or that have not been reasonably made known to the other party are not enforceable. This trend reflects a growing emphasis on consumer protection against unfair contract terms, even in the absence of fraud. Despite the trend, it is not a blanket rule, and enforceability can heavily depend on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the fine print and the parties’ relationship.