I fell for it again!!!!!!
Satire? Maybe ... in Florida it’s precedent that you can hold someone that doesn’t understand to a contract..
see below:
********************
2. The following is an excerpt from THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION explaining the futility of both a possible “ignorance” defense by the defendant relating to not understanding the wording of their own contract ; a defense based on the lack of a “meeting of the minds” or even “fairness” of the tender. “ http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/spring2014-0614-demise-meeting-of-minds-contract-law.html “
As one Florida appellate court stated in 2013, there is no consideration of the “mind” when it comes to determining whether there was a “meeting of the minds,” even when the party seeking to avoid the contract “could not possibly have understood” it. Spring Lake NC, LLC v. Holloway, 110 So. 3d 916, 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). In Spring Lake NC, LLC v. Holloway, a 92-year-old woman with a fourth-grade education became a resident at a facility that provides physical, occupational, and speech therapy. 110 So. 3d at 917. The woman signed, among other things, an arbitration agreement before becoming a resident. The trial court found (and the appellate court agreed) that the woman “could not spell well and often had to sound out words while reading” and that “[s]he had memory problems and was increasingly confused.” Id. Further, the trial court found “that the contracts were so complex that she could not possibly have understood what she was signing.” Id.
When the woman’s estate brought suit against the rehabilitation center for her allegedly wrongful death, and despite the obvious inability of the woman to understand what she was signing, the trial court did not declare the woman incompetent or incapacitated. But, because of her shortcomings, the trial court held that no “meeting of the minds” had occurred.
On appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal enforced the arbitration agreement. The court explained that it was following established Florida precedent holding that there is a presumption of competence and that two signatures create a contract absent undue influence (including being prevented from reading the contract). Among precedent relied on by the court was an intermediate court ruling that the fact that the plaintiff was legally blind when she signed an agreement did not make the agreement invalid. See Estate of Etting ex rel. Etting v. Regents Park at Aventura, Inc., 891 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). In other words, only if you are prevented by the other party from reading the contract can your claim that you did not read the contract (even if you are physically or mentally incapable of doing so) prevail.