Anita and Barry were negotiating, and Anita’s attorney prepared a long and carefully drawn contract, which was given to Barry for examination
Anita and Barry were negotiating, and Anita’s attorney prepared a long and carefully drawn contract, which was given to Barry for examination. Five days later and prior to its execution, Barry’s eyes became so infected that it was impossible for him to read. Ten days thereafter and during the continuance of the illness, Anita called upon Barry and urged him to sign the contract, telling him that time was running out. Barry signed the contract despite the fact he was unable to read it. In a subsequent action by Anita, Barry claimed that the contract was not binding upon him because it was impossible for him to read and he did not know what it contained prior to his signing it. Should Barry be held to the contract?
The argument made by Individual B aboutdeclaring the contract voidable is correct because the case involves contract authentication under the wrong influence of the other party, that is,Individual A.
Individual B was not informed about the contents before signing. Individual A urged Individual B to sign the contract even after knowing the fact that Individual B is incapable of reading. For this reason, the contract is unfair because itwas signed by taking the advantage of Individual B'stemporary loss of ability to readthe contract content.
Individual B will not be bound with the contact terms. Thisis because it will stand to be void as Individual B signed the contract under the unjustified influence of Individual A.