In my experience I never had a single case of objection to that (correcting one-sides clauses).
Few iterations back and forth - yes, but it's clearly fair.
Few iterations back and forth - yes, but it's clearly fair.
That was our motivation at BindView (now part of Symantec) for developing what many customers' lawyers said was the greatest vendor contract they'd ever seen: We didn't want to spend our time repeatedly negotiating the same T&C changes like gerbils in a wheel. This was especially true as the game clock was running down at the end of the fiscal-reporting quarter. [0]
In the USA it's almost expected that you should request changes and trust levels may go down if you don't.
In many parts of Europe the client's response is often that they are well within their rights to "protect" themselves through one-sided clauses.
In Africa you just get the funny look.
In Europe contracts tends to be more on a "fair" side of equation (less opportunistic sneaky clauses but more in-your-face bummers).
In North America the initial paperwork scale quality greatly depends on absurdity levels of lawyers at the other side (lawsuit-prone enterprises, large corps with unlimited budgets "just because they can" and heavily regulated industries claiming "this is industry-standard contract" BS).
In my past - after prolonged, fruitless battle with IBM lawyers - I accepted all [ridiculous] IBM terms and was rewarded with 5 yrs of doing well-paid, WFH, interesting, creative, cool stuff.
So there is no hard and fast rules - go with your gut sometimes is a best advice.