Frodo has a written contract he wants Gandalf to sign as two independent parties. The contract states that Gandalf will produce a firework show for Frodo’s event. Gandalf, who requires reading glasses but is of sound mind, does not want to sign the contract until he can read the document. Frodo tells Gandalf that it is a standard contract for this type of event and Gandalf signs the contract. Gandalf later reads the contract and does not agree to some of the terms. Is the contract Gandalf signed binding against him?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Consider the contract scenario and the common law principles governing contract formation.

Option 1: Yes, he is bound by the contract regardless of whether he read the material. This reflects the general rule that a person who signs a contract is bound by its terms, even if they did not read it, so long as they had the capacity to understand and were not under special circumstances that would render the contract voidable (e.g., fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake). In this case, Gandalf is described as being of sound mind and not under duress, and there is no indication of misrepresentation by Frodo that would render the contract voidable. Therefore, the signatory is typically bound by the agreement he signed.

Option 2: No, because Frodo fraudulently induced Gandalf into signing the contract. For this to be true, Gandalf would need to show that Frodo intentionally lied or concealed facts to induce signing a contract on terms Gandalf would not have agreed to if fully informed. The prompt does not present evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation by Frodo; merely stating that Frodo claimed it was a standard contract does not establish fraudulent inducement. Without proof of fraud, this option is not supported.

Option 3: No, because Gandalf did not read the contract and cannot be liable for a contract he did not read. The failure to read prior to signing is a common misconception about contract enforceability. In most jurisdictions, a party is bound by a contract he signs even if he did not read it, provided he had the capacity to understand and did not rely on misrepresentation. Therefore this reasoning is incorrect as a blanket rule.

Option 4: No, because Gandalf was acting under Duress. Duress involves unlawfully coercive pressure that compels a party to sign. There is no suggestion in the scenario that Gandalf faced threats, physical force, or other coercive tactics. Absent evidence of duress, this critique does not apply.

Option 5: No, because the contract is voidable as the result of Undue Influence. Undue influence requires a relationship where one party exerts excessive pressure or influence over another to obtain a contract that benefits the influencing party. The description does not indicate such a relationship or manipulation. Hence this reason is not established by the facts given.

Overall, Option 1 aligns with standard contract principles given the facts provided, while Options 2–5 rely on conditions (fraud, lack of reading, duress, undue influence) that are not demonstrated in the scenario. The analysis shows why each incorrect option fails to fit the facts as stated.

STRAT 3410-003 Fall 2025 Exam #3- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Contractual acceptance is the final step in forming a binding agreement. It occurs when the person receiving the offer agrees to the offer's terms as presented.

In seeking to determine whether there is a meeting of the minds, the courts look to how a reasonable person would objectively view the language or actions of the parties.

Which of the following answers contains a valid contract:

Question at position 17 A purchase order is legally binding once issued by the buyer.TrueFalse

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单