Does it matter what is directly on a contract if you were blatantly lied to and didn't read the small print?

Question

This is simply a general question. Why is it that Wills and Trusts are often disputed yet when a Gym, Tanning Salon and other known entities that straight up lie to get people to sign their life away seem to get away with it? It does not seem like it should be legal to lie to someone fraudulently manipulate them and hear "Well you should have just read the small well written print."

Answer 1

The two are not really related even though it appears that they are on the surface. The simple answer to your question is that there are often large sums of money involved in will disputes so people will pay to argue to have them voided. The requirements for execution of a will are strict and if a potential heir or legatee can show that any one of the requirements was not met, then that will can be discarded and the property would pass according to a prior will or the laws of intestate succession.

Regarding the contract, it sounds to me that you are alleging fraud in the inducement to enter the contract. This is a viable claim and you do hear of cases occasionally (usually class action by a state attorney general). It would be cost prohibitive for one person to bring an action based on contract for something like a gym contract. It is also possible to use things like fraudulent inducement as a defense if you are sued for amounts owed under the contract but that is not a case that we would hear about. It would be in small claims court and not reported anywhere.

Answer 2

unfortunately, yes it does matter. A written contract will overrule a verbal agreement on the same matter. You should always read every word on a document that you sign. If someone is impatient and doesn't want you to read something - you need to walk away - they're obviously hiding something.
It is very difficult to dispute a trust - a trust creates an entity with trustees. A will is just basically someone's notarized wishes. They can be disputed easily due to unknown circumstances. They are very different things.
Gyms and Tanning Salons and the like have very fine print - they do this because people don't always keep their end of the bargain and pay when they're supposed to - because they're probably no longer using the services. The businesses have to protect their investments. I'm not defending the cheap practices that some establishments use, but there are a lot of people out there that just don't pay their bills.

Answer 3

Yes - the print on a contract is the ONLY thing that matters.
When you have a dispute - what evidence will you have to present other than the contract? Since no arbiter was at the original meeting - why should an arbiter believe you when you "CLAIM" you were lied to.

you should always read the contract. Every word. When the Gym salesman or tanning salon salesman is telling you about some feature - directly ask them where in the contract it verifies their claim.
This is not rude - it is required. If the salesman is lying and cannot show you the contractual clause - then ask for a higher level of management or refuse to sign and walk out.

Answer 4

Actually, since you didn't state from where this contract was signed, there are options, but only in the United Kingdon under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

HOWEVER, if you are in the U.S. the only provision under law which would give you redress is if the 'fine print' substantially altered the terms of the contract or if they denied you a right under law which cannot be contracted away. An example of the latter is advising you that you have no right to sue if injured due to the salon's own negligence.

Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd.[5] provides that clarity and preciseness will raise the reasonableness of a term; and vice versa. See also Stag Line Ltd. v Tyne Ship Repair Group Ltd.[6] as to small print (literally; size-wise).

Answer 5

This follows the rule of caveat emptor. You must read and understand terms before signing a contract.

A will is typically contested for two reasons; either the terms are unclear and ambiguous, or someone is greedy. In the first case, a court has to clarfiy the issues; in the second, hopefully the greedy person will be turned down by the court.

Answer 6

If it is in readable text on the contract, even if it is in the fine print they are covered. They did not lie, they fully disclosed the terms of the contract in text.

Read everything, and don't sign anything with print too small to read.

Answer 7

our laws are flawed in these matters

it is impossible for a lay person to read and understand all of the small print in contracts that they sign every day

there is not enough time in a day to read your insurance policies, medical forms, electric/gas/cable bills, credit card forms, etc.and they are written so as to be vague and not understandable by a lay person

this is an area where lawyers have gone amuck and need to be reined in

Answer 8

Sorry the fine print is there for a reason. Ignorance is not a defense. If you haven't researched and read the contract you shouldn't being signing it.

Answer 9

There is a term in law called 'unconscionable' which refers to any part of a contract deemed unenforceable due to the fact that most reasonable people would not agree to it if they were aware of what they were agreeing to. It's not just wills that are disputed.

Answer 10

You are ultimately responsible for anything you sign your name to. If you don't read the small print, there is no one to blame but you. Seriously - I have people say about hotel contracts - well, I didn't understand the cancellation clause...

Well, when I asked if you had any questions, you said no, then you signed it. I did my job in asking if you needed clarification. When you said you didn't, and signed it, then you are responsible.