Am I applying the right procedure? I asked a question and gave it a subject. Someone edited the title to something irrelevant (I assume unknowingly). I replaced the title with something similar to my original title and a bit more precise. The new edit was rolled back by another editor. This time I left the title but edited my opening post to begin with a statement that the title is not what I was asking and to clarify what I was asking. The mistitling could make the actual question harder to find in a search. What should I do next?
Ideally, the title should state the question/main topic that is more-or-less clear to anybody without reading the question body, while the body is to give more context to the question.
The 5th revision done by you stated that the title doesn't reflect the question, in which you added
I never asked if a business could declaim anything and my question is not centered on contracts of adhesion. I asked about whether a contract is one if it is described by a party as not a contract, even if adhesion law applies.
Instead of clarifying on the body while still having a conflicting title, you should instead clarify the title. In fact, your sentence that I emphasized looks like the main question, in which it should also be used in the title, like
Is it still a contract if it is described by a party as "not a contract", even if adhesion law applies (between two parties)?
Sometimes, being verbose helps better than being unclear.
I would say that it is imperative that a title make sense and be clearly related to the body of the question. Too often, the body of a question does not include any actual question, just a stream of attendant facts, and the question itself is contained in the title of the Q. In essence, the title, and the body of the Q, have become equal partners in the notion of an SE "question". If the title and body of the Q are unclear or contradictory, then the question should be closed as "unclear what you're asking". When it is possible to repair one of those defects, the problem is often fixed, because the alternative of closing for unclarity is a bit harsher.
It looks like feetwet was trying to make the title easier for answerers to scan and understand.
As it was, your original title, "if something said not to be a contract", is a sentence fragment and doesn't state the actual question.
feetwet has read the body of your question and tried to phrase the title as an actual question.
Disclaim means to claim that something is not the case.
I would say that "disclaiming a contract of adhesion" means what you're asking, which is "to say that a contract of adhesion is not actually that".
If you insist on your original title, I would expect that users will respect that. However, please note that it may make it less likely that you will get answers, as answerers will need to take the extra step of reading your question body, rather than knowing that they can answer it by reading the title.