When one party signs a contract containing an exclusion clause, that party may later argue that it is not bound by that exclusion clause because he or she did not see it or realize it was there.The Ontario Court of Appeal in Fraser Jewellers, supra note 33, makes it difficult to succeed with such an argument in a commercial setting (i.e., business to business), stating that “in the absence of fraud or other improper conduct inducing the plaintiff to enter the contract, the onus must rest upon the plaintiff to review the document and satisfy itself of its advantages and disadvantages before signing it” at para 32.Do you think that this test is too strict and that courts should be more flexible in deciding whether to apply an exclusion clause? Why or not?