This study compares the approach that Qatari Civil Law No. 22/2004 (QCL) takes to standard terms with that taken by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016. The main difference between QCL and the UNIDROIT Principles, is that the QCL relates standard terms contracts with adhesion contracts. The latter are only concerned with strategic goods and services that are monopolized by the supplier. Another difference is the remedy; under the QCL, the judge has the authority not only to exempt the adhering party from the oppressive standard term, but to also amend that term. However, under the UNIDROIT Principles, surprising terms are invalid. The study recommends that the Qatari legislator remove the connection in the QCL between standard terms contracts and adhesion contracts, and limit judges’ authority to exempting disadvantaged parties from oppressive terms.