A person who signed a document that he believed to be a customer card, was surprised to find out, years later, that it was a letter of guarantee and that the beneficiary seeks to exercise that guarantee.
The Court accepted the beneficiary’s contention as the guarantee was duly signed by the guarantor. The annulment of a contract cannot be contended on the grounds that the signatory did not bother reading it even though it was in his power to do so. A person's signature on a document (unless it is proven that this was done under pressure or under improper circumstances) constitutes a presumption that the signatory has read and understood the contents of the document, and in particular when it is a document of significance to the signatory, then logic dictates that the signing was not done absentmindedly. Here, it is not a case where a signatory contends that the signing was made under threats or pressure or under improper circumstances, but rather contends that it was actually under positive circumstances and it was his positive acquaintance with the beneficiary that led him to not bothering to read the document and mistakenly thinking that it was a different document. In addition, the guarantee does not include any limit to the amount and is thus a document that is important to the signatory, so there is no reason to disqualify the guarantee for this reason as well.