6 ms·

IANAL, How would you prove that? I think there are protected classes for that reason, but if some adult outside of such classifications signs they could ostens

IANAL, How would you prove that? I think there are protected classes for that reason, but if some adult outside of such classifications signs they could ostensibly renege at any point under the pretense that they didn't understand, conversely I presume it would necessitate attorneys (or similar) at every contract signing to ensure it would be binding.

johndhi 4y ago
Your question is exactly the reason why meeting of the minds doesn't solve this problem. It's subjective. Fyi in practice, signing the document means that you understand it, as far as a court is concerned. Contracts will often throw in boiler plate like "I am authorized to sign this, I've read it, and I understand and agree to it." The most common way it's successfully challenged is "incompetence" - by showing the person who signed it in no way could have possibly understood it (e.g. developmentally disabled, someone held a gun to their head, don't speak the language and the translation was fraudulent, etc).
pdonis 4y ago
> How would you prove that? You don't. Once you sign a written contract, the presumption is that there was a successful meeting of the minds between the parties. If you later want to claim that you didn't have a meeting of the minds with the other party, the burden of proof is on you to show that. The other party does not have to prove that you did understand the contract.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The problem is that many of the contacts are shrink wrapped - there's no way for you to modify the contract and rejection outright is not free.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    What do you mean by "rejection outright is not free"? If you don't have the option to decline to participate, it's not a contract.
    - pas 4y ago
      there are contracts of adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract
ribosometronome 4y ago
IANAL as well, but isn't there a reasonable person standard test applied in law, sometimes? It seems like the issue here is that reasonable people are expected to not be able to parse contracts.

johndhi 4y ago

Your question is exactly the reason why meeting of the minds doesn't solve this problem. It's subjective. Fyi in practice, signing the document means that you understand it, as far as a court is concerned. Contracts will often throw in boiler plate like "I am authorized to sign this, I've read it, and I understand and agree to it." The most common way it's successfully challenged is "incompetence" - by showing the person who signed it in no way could have possibly understood it (e.g. developmentally disabled, someone held a gun to their head, don't speak the language and the translation was fraudulent, etc).

pdonis 4y ago

> How would you prove that? You don't. Once you sign a written contract, the presumption is that there was a successful meeting of the minds between the parties. If you later want to claim that you didn't have a meeting of the minds with the other party, the burden of proof is on you to show that. The other party does not have to prove that you did understand the contract.

AstralStorm 4y ago
The problem is that many of the contacts are shrink wrapped - there's no way for you to modify the contract and rejection outright is not free.
- pdonis 4y ago
  What do you mean by "rejection outright is not free"? If you don't have the option to decline to participate, it's not a contract.
  - pas 4y ago
    there are contracts of adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

ribosometronome 4y ago

IANAL as well, but isn't there a reasonable person standard test applied in law, sometimes? It seems like the issue here is that reasonable people are expected to not be able to parse contracts.