In Gaskin v$.$ Stumm Handel $GmbH,$ the District Court ruled:

a$.$ that the plaintiff's signing of a jural document makes the signatory conclusively bound.

b$.$ that the plaintiff was excused from performing a contract written in German because he understood only English.

c$.$ that the contract was unconscionable because it was written in a language foreign to the plaintiff.

d$.$ that employment contracts must be in writing.