Craig and Pamela are friends, and they jointly own a very expensive painting, in equal shares. Pamela is involved in a serious car accident and is hospitalised for six months. During this time, she was heavily medicated because of the pain she constantly experienced due to her injuries. The medication often made her drowsy for long periods of time. On one occasion when Craig visited her in hospital, he presented her with a document and requested that she sign it. Craig explained to Pamela that it was a contractual document to appoint a service provider they were going to use, for the safe keeping of the painting they jointly owned, and he indicated that he had already signed the document. Pamela in her drowsy state did not read the document and she signed it. When she got discharged from hospital and regained her strength, she learnt that the document she signed gave full ownership rights of the painting to Craig without Pamela receiving any compensation, and it had nothing to do with appointing a service provider to keep the painting safe. Assume that the written agreement that both parties signed complied with any applicable formalities that was required to grant full ownership rights of the painting to Craig. Pamela approaches you for legal advice. Apply the will theory and the direct reliance theory and advise Pamela whether she was bound by the written document that they both signed. Discuss fully and refer to case law in your answer. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.