Legal Question in Business Law in California

Missed fine print in contract - different than discussed

I signed a contract, but missed some of the fine print...

I have a web site where I sell products. I thought I was paying to have appx 10,000 visitors sent to my website in a one year period for the next three years.

Six months after signing the contract, I take a closer look at the contract. I see that it says that 10,000 people will be given the chance to visit my website - but not necessarily visit it.

During all of my conversations with the company, we discussed paying for visitors to my site - not just exposing them to a link to my site. I even have emails that I sent them telling them that I wanted more than 10,000 visitors.

I think the contract is pretty clear, and I am screwed. Unless my emails or the verbal promises can be used to back me up. I am out $5,000 and feel like I have been tricked.

Can anyone offer advice?

I live in Oklahoma, the company is based in California.

Thanks,

Mark


Asked on 5/07/04, 2:58 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Jonas Grant Law Office of Jonas M. Grant, A.P.C.

Re: Missed fine print in contract - different than discussed

You probably also missed the integration clause, assuming there is one, which if so, will state that the agreement itself represents the entire understanding between the parties and that no outside oral or email promises or comments will alter the contract, absent a written agreement to the contrary signed by the parties.

Read more
Answered on 5/10/04, 4:37 pm
Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

Re: Missed fine print in contract - different than discussed

Ordinarily, a party to a contract is presumed to have read it and/or assumes the risk of his failure to read and understand it.

There are a few excpetions, and in California an important one is that so-called "contracts of adhesion" or "adhesion contracts" are disfavored and may be construed against the party that wrote one.

An "adhesion contract" is one that is written by one party and presented to the other on a take-it or leave-it basis, for example a car rental agency's agreement, with no opportunity for the other party to negotiate the terms and no realistic chance to read all the language.

One of the California policies with respect to adhesion contracts is that any term or condition that is sharply different than one might reasonably expect to find and cuts agains the interests of the party that didn't draw up the contract may be disregarded or interpreted less unfavorably.

I believe a clause in a contract of adhesion may be unenforceable if it is outside the scope of what the other party ought reasonably to expect in the contract.

Your remedy, probably, is to sue in California small-claims court. To do this successfully with the least amount of travel expense and other hassle, I suggest buying a paperback self-help law book on Calif. small claims procedure -- there are several -- and also using on-line resources to find California cases discussing adhesion contracts. Remember that you not only have to get the court to reject the language as written, you also have to convince the small-claims judge that YOUR version of the agreement should be substituted. Your e-mails may help.

File and serve your suit so that the trial date concides with a time when you can appear in court to testify without undue expense or inconvenience.

Please note that I can't predict your chances of winning; that depends upon the contract, the nature and credibility of your evidence, and the attitudes and skills of your judge.

Read more
Answered on 5/07/04, 7:33 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Business Law questions and answers in California