[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and you cannot really bury things in the fine print. I am a bit fuzzy on what is considered incorrigible, but if a judge finds something in the contract incorrigible I believe that is grounds for the wronged (duped) party to void the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP - nice thread idea. The above quoted is something I've always wondered about. For example, my friend (a lawyer) is working on a pro bono case representing subprime borrowers who recently defaulted on their mortgages. The contention is that the subprime borrowers (not native English speakers, mainly Hispanic) were grossly misled concerning their mortgage payment levels, and the actual structure of the debt.

Let's assume the actual terms were "buried" within the contract but extant somehow. My gut says the borrower in this case should be accountable for reading the contract and understanding it... but I guess not?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, people who enter contracts are imputed to have read and understood the language of the contract... but not always. There are equitable remedies available to set aside the contract (sometimes)... if the contract was "unconscionable," or if there was a severe disparity in bargaining position, etc.

To counter these possibilities, however, a lot of today's contracts have broad "I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CONTRACT AND I HAVE CONSULTED WITH MY ATTORNEY" language that the parties have everyone initial, so it's much harder to contend you didn't know what you were signing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A routine example of an unconscionable contract were the old "rent to own" deals for TVs. You signed a long form contract in which you agreed to make a series of payments that totaled many multiples of the total cost of the TV. If you were a day late with even the last payment, they could repo the TV.