Frank owns a travel agency in Christchurch. It offers bespoke trips for single people aged between 20 and 45. Due to increased demand for the services that his company offers, he has employed Jennifer as his office assistant for the past three years. Jennifer proved very effective at her work and popular with clients. Over the past year in particular Jennifer has taken on more responsibilities and Frank increasingly relied on her. The company used to order goods from Stationary Express Ltd. Last Wednesday, while Frank was on his way out of the office to visit his father who had recently been admitted to hospital, Jennifer handed him a document to sign, assuring him that it was the paperwork for the required order of supplies from Stationary Express Ltd for the travel agency. As Frank was eager to reach the hospital within visiting hours to see his father, he signed the document without reading it. The document signed by Frank was actually an order for stationary for Jennifers lavish wedding that Jennifer was planning overseas. As the invoice for the stationary remains unpaid, Stationary Express Ltd are now pursuing Frank for payment as the order was signed by him. Frank is understandably angry with the dishonesty of Jennifer. A friend told him about the doctrine of non est factum and that he might be able to escape liability pleading the doctrine. Frank wishes to know more about the doctrine and whether he would succeed in pleading non est factum. YOU ARE REQUIRED to advise Frank, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases.