Talk:Non est factum

Untitled

"I'm not bound because I didn't know what the contract meant." Would many EULA terms fall subject to this? --Damian Yerrick 05:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very unlikely, non est factum presents a very high bar to overcome. The fact that you know its a licensing agreement, irrespective of what exactly is says, means you are assumed to be capable of understanding. --PullUpYourSocks 22:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At a risk of overgeneralising, non es factum tends to only operate in favour of blind people, and victims of fraud. --Legis (talk - contributions) 15:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non est factum -- can only be pleaded when someone through no fault of their own is under a fundamental mistake as to the nature of a contractual document. The key is the no fault, which means that someone who signs a contract which they don't examine because perhaps, they didn't read it or didn't have their reading glasses on, can't plead this. The leading case in Australia is Petelin v Cullen, where someone who was illiterate was mistaken as to the nature of a document he was signing (it was misrepresented to him as a mere receipt). The same principle would apply in cases of blindness I guess, or a special disability of a similarly high standard --Cliau 14:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im a first year law student who has studied this topic . will i be qualified enough to add something to this stub?Metallicmania (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valentinengoddy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]