1) Do you agree with the court decisions?Explain ? BACKGROUND AND FACTS The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, entered into an employment contract with the German firm of Stumm Handel, the defendant. The contract was written entirely in German. Without being able to speak or read German, the plaintiff signed the contract. He never received an English language version. However the terms of the contract were explained to him in English. One of the terms of the contract, known as a "forum selection clause," provided that any disputes that might arise between the parties would be settled in the courts of Germany. Later, when the parties reached a disagreement, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant in the United States, contending that his failure to understand German rendered the forum selection clause invalid. CANELLA ;DISTRICT jUDGE With regard to such translation, Gaskin asserts that "I was never informed that by executing the (contract), I was consenting to the Republic of West Germany [now Germany] as the forum within which I must submit all controversies" and that "had I known this, I would not have agreed to the same, as such an obligation is onerous and unconscionable, and a deterrent to bringing any actions whatsoever."... We find that in making the foregoing assertions, Gaskin flies in the face of well-settled contract law principles and has failed to sustain his burden. It is a settled proposition of contract law in this state and nation that "the signer of a deed or other instrument, expressive of a jurai act, is conclusively bound thereby. That his mind never gave assent to the terms expressed is not material. If the signer could read the instrument, not to have read it was gross negli- gence; if he could not read it, not to procure it to be read was equally negligent; in either case the writing binds him (citations omitted) ... " While Mr. Gaskin's apparent "blissful ignorance" with regard to the contract under which he was to render his labors to the defendant strikes us as highly incredible as a matter of common sense, we take note of certain facts which are relevant to the disposition of this matter. It must be remembered that Mr. Gaskin is not an ignorant consumer, unlearned in the language of the contract, who has become entangled in the web of a contract of adhesion through the overreaching or other unconscionable practices of the defendant. The contract at bar does not involve the credit sale of a refrigerator or color television set, but rather compensation of some $36,000 per annum for Mr. Gaskin's services as the manager in charge of the defendant's New York operations which were to be conducted under the name Stumm Trading Company. His office (Park Avenue, New York City) is not located in an area which would have precluded his easy access to a competent translation of the involved document. There existed no emergency condition or other exceptional circumstances at the time plaintiff entered into this contract; conditions which might now serve to excuse his present plight. Mr. Gaskin has advanced no evidence to support a finding that the contract sued upon is other than one which was fairly negotiated at arm's length and in a businesslike fashion between the parties and voluntarily entered into by him in the hope of reaping a great economic benefit ... Thus, we find that the instant transaction was a commercial arrangement of a nature which warranted the exercise of care by Mr. Gaskin before his entry into it and that his conduct with regard to this undertaking can only be characterized as negligent, the consequences of which he must now bear Decision. The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, holding that the plaintiff's failure to speak or read German was not grounds for invalidating any of the provisions of the contract