The proposition that it is impractical to read and understand every contract we enter into does not present a need for a law invalidating or avoiding every cont

The proposition that it is impractical to read and understand every contract we enter into does not present a need for a law invalidating or avoiding every contract where insufficient time to read and understand it is not given. I think the only consequence of the proposed law (if that proposition is correct) would be to destroy contractual certainty for a time; the premise denies that anyone would actually use the period of time for its intended purpose. I also only referred to contracts that are signed. Signatures are important: as a general rule, you are taken to have read and understood the terms of any contract you have signed. If you agree to the terms of a contract without signing (eg many of the examples you mention, or oral acceptance, or clicking a button) there is generally no such assumption. Whether that will afford you any greater measure of relief if you later want to get out of the contract depends on the individual case, but there are circumstances in which it will.