Please help me come up with a Counter argument for Samantha:

In the case of Samantha v. Topten University, the university and intramural department would argue in their favor based on the enforceability of the waiver signed by Samantha. Firstly, the waiver represents a valid offer and acceptance, fulfilling the essential elements of a contract. Topten University offered to provide a sports experience, specifically participation in intramural softball, in exchange for the acceptance of the terms outlined in the waiver. Samantha voluntarily signed the waiver, indicating her acceptance of its terms, but without fully reading its contents. However, the law does not typically require parties to read every word of a contract for it to be enforceable, rather it expects a reasonable effort to understand the terms.

Furthermore, the waiver was not inherently unfair. While Samantha may argue that she did not fully understand the terms due to her excitement about the game, the waiver was presented in a standard format, with clear indications of its significance, such as the reference to an "Exculpatory Agreement". Additionally, while Samantha may have missed some details of the waiver, the document provided a general understanding that participants were absolving the university and intramural department from liability for injuries sustained during the game, including those resulting from acts of negligence.

The court would likely rule in favor of Topten University based on the enforceability of the waiver. Samantha voluntarily signed the document, indicating her agreement to its terms, and there is no evidence to suggest that the waiver was unfairly presented or that Samantha was incapable of understanding its implications. So the waiver would serve as a valid defense against Samantha's negligence claim, clearing Topten University of liability for her injury.