While filling out a car rental application at the Vancouver airport, Mr Clendenning was asked by the rental agent at Tilden Rent-a-Car whether he wanted to purchase collision insurance for an additional, modest fee. After agreeing to pay extra, Clendenning was handed a complicated rental contract. Being in a hurry, he signed the document without reading it. The rental agent neither asked him to read the contract nor mentioned that it included an unusual term that excluded insurance coverage if the driver had consumed any amount of alcohol. During the rental period, Clendenning got into an accident and damaged the vehicle. He admitted to drinking a small quantity of alcohol that day. Not having read the agreement, Clendenning was unaware of the term that excluded coverage if any alcohol was consumed. That term did not appear on the face of the contract; it was found on the back in small print. Clendenning claimed he was led to believe that the insur[1]ance provided complete coverage. Tilden, on the other hand, argued that Clendenning's signature was sufficient to bind him to the terms of the contract. Tilden also claimed that Clendenning's previous dealings with Tilden provided him with ample opportunity to read the terms of the contract despite the fact that he signed it that day in a hurry. Questions for Discussion

1. Do you think Clenndenning's signature represented a true acceptance of the terms of the contract? Why or why not?

2. Would your analysis change if the contract excluded insurance cover[1]age only if the driver had consumed over the legal limit of alcohol?

3. This case was decided in 1978. Assume instead that it is 2016 and the rental application is provided digitally, on an iPad, with a button that says "I Agree" at the bottom of the page. Would this impact the outcome?