Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided April 28, 1986No. Nos. 84-1189, 84-1199, 83-1842 and 84-1511Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge

I concur in the court’s interpretation and application of the Toussaint rule. I am *463troubled, however, by the short shrift given to Ms. Batchelor’s claim that, due to her poor reading ability, she could not comprehend the disclaimer and merely signed the job application form in a routine manner without realizing its contractual nature. Batchelor presented evidence of her limited education and reading level, and also presented an expert's analysis of the level of reading difficulty of the Sears “contract.” The district court rejected her argument summarily, relying on a passage from a 1929…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Horn v. CookeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Sponseller v. KimballMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Pakulski v. LudwiczewskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Richeson v. WagarMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API