Bundy had lived and worked on a farm his entire life. For the past 20 years or so, he had rented most of the farmland to his extended family, since he is no longer fit to work the land himself. Eventually, his family sought to buy the farm from him. After a couple of years of discussing the purchase, Bundy finally agreed to sell the farm to his nephew for $100 000. An Agreement of Purchase and Sale was drawn up and eventually signed by both parties. A few days later, the nephew paid the 10 percent deposit as required by the contract. He wrote a $10 000 cheque for Bundy and personally drove him to the bank so that he could cash it. Bundy did so but, after a couple of days, he told his nephew that he had made a huge mistake, claiming that the price was too low. Consequently, he refused to transfer title. His nephew brought an action for specific performance. One of Bundy's central claims in the lawsuit was that he was taken advantage of because he never actually read the Agreement of Purchase and Sale prior to signing it. Is the fact that the poor old farmer never read the agreement significant? How will a court respond if Bundy pleads non est factum?