During contract negotiation, parties often refer to their respective standard terms at some stage of the negotiations. When the contract is international, these standard terms often contain choice-of-law clauses. More often than not, each party will designate its own law as the law governing the contract in its respective standard terms. The question then is: do any of the standard terms prevail and which law applies to solve the battle of forms? The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, approved in March 2015, provide a solution for this issue. This contribution looks at recent academic commentary on the Hague solution and analyses whether Article 6 of the Hague Principles has helped, or may indeed help in the future, to increase legal certainty in international commercial transactions. The contribution examines the conclusions that national, interregional, and international legislators or courts may draw from the relevant academic discussion. It submits a proposal aiming to close the gap that exists in the Rome I Regulation with respect to choice of law in the battle of forms situations and also suggests applying the same solution to both conflicting choice-of-law clauses and conflicting choice-of-court clauses in standard forms.