The doctrine of fundamental breach is chiefly predicated on the facts or assumption that a party to a contract or contract of sale has committed a misnomer in the contract that goes to the root of the contract, thereby knocking the bottom off its commercial relevance. The prerequisites which must be fulfilled before a buyer may avoid a contract under the CISG are very different from those which must be fulfilled to reject under the UCC. Moreover, case law interpreting the doctrine has only added to the ambiguity, thus making it nearly impossible for any interpreter to confidently answer the seemingly basic question of whether a contract for the international sale of goods has been fundamentally breached. It seems as though the goal of contract preservation has outweighed the desire for any bright line rules and maybe rightly so when considering the international context in which these cases are decided.
The nature of the contracts changes with the developments in business environments. Most contracts entered into by ordinary people today are not in fact the result of individual negotiations. Even insurance contracts are similar to such contracts of adhesion since one party holds a stronger bargaining position in the contract and this is usually the drafting party, whereas the other party holds a weaker position and this is usually the accepting party. The existing provisions of the the Indian Contract Act show that the legal control is not quite adequate to come to the rescue of the weaker party against adhesion contracts and to meet the needs of the changing times.