C rented car from T. T gave min info required. C got additional insurance. C didn’t read doc, T saw that C didn't read it. Got in accident not covered. C said if new of limits would not have gotten it
Was he bound by the terms of the exclusion clause?
Signature is not longer absolute – if the terms are onerous or not expected to be read then you must take reasonable steps to bring them to attention of the signing party.
**It is not necessary for party to prove fraud, misrepresentation, and non est factum (situations where signature is also not absolute) – party relying on terms must take reasonable steps
**Test: Did they do what is reasonable to bring it to your attention? – what is reasonable is objective
***If not you are not bound even if you signed it
When a contract is signed, then, in absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is immaterial whether he has read the document or not (L’Estrange) – traditional law – built on.
The speed at which it was carried out was quickly – court saying you wouldn’t expect anybody here to read it.
**Relates back to the standard of what kind of notice is reasonable.
***This is possibly something someone could argue to narrow the rule in this case.
A signature is an objective indication on assent.
**But a signature doesn’t give you any real indication that the parties assented
C entitled to benefit of the contract w/o the exclusionary clause
Modify traditional rule relating to signature:
**Even in case of signature if you are going to insert terms that are not expected to be here then you must do something to bring it to the signers attention.
***It seems to turned signed contracts into unsigned contract.
***With unsigned contracts you need do what is reasonable.