Len was behind in his work at the office.He decided to go in for a few hours on Sunday to catch up.He asked a secretary to come in for four hours.He turned on his office TV.Just then his secretary came in and asked him to sign four letters that she said concerned general office matters.He carelessly signed them without taking his eyes off the TV screen.One of the "letters" was,in fact,a cheque for $500 payable to the secretary.The secretary cashed the cheque at her bank,and when her bank presented the cheque for payment,Len instructed his bank not to honour it.He said that he had been tricked and that his signing it was all a big mistake.On these facts,which of the following is true?
A) Because Len did not know what he was signing, he cannot be held liable.
B) Len's carelessness in failing to read what he was signing will likely defeat any claim of non est factum.
C) He could avoid his obligation on the cheque on the basis of duress.
D) He could avoid his obligation on the cheque on the basis of unconscionability.
E) Undue influence would be his best defence on these facts.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Len's carelessness in not reading what he was signing will likely defeat any claim of non est factum. Non est factum is a legal defense that allows a person to avoid a contractual obligation if they can demonstrate that they did not understand the nature of the document they were signing. However, in this case, Len's failure to read the documents he was signing indicates that he did not take reasonable care to understand what he was signing. Therefore, he may not be able to rely on non est factum as a defense. The other options given are not applicable to the facts presented in the scenario.

Len Was Behind in His Work at the Office