I think you're conflating two issues there. You are suggesting that there isn't a true agreement because one party either didn't read the contract or only begru

I think you're conflating two issues there. You are suggesting that there isn't a true agreement because one party either didn't read the contract or only begrudgingly agreed to be bound by its terms. Allowing either of those circumstances to void a contract would fundamentally undermine the whole concept. The whole point of contract is that it is a bargain; each side does something they would rather not do in order to gain something they wouldn't have otherwise. I don't want to pay rent; it's just something I have to do because otherwise I would have no place to live. I think the real issue here is contracts made between parties of unequal bargaining power. They are still contracts but perhaps they should be regulated more strictly. There are plenty of examples of EU consumer legislation taking this approach. Some impose obligations on the powerful party that can't be contracted out of; others imply terms into contracts; still others simply say that in certain contracts between unequal parties, unreasonable terms are unenforceable. Clearly there are many who think that this kind of regulation doesn't currently go far enough in protecting weaker parties, but I think it is the right conceptual framework.