illustration of the duty-to-read issue involves a person who is illiterate or unfamiliar with the language in which the contract is written, or is blind or did not put reading glasses on, but signed the document without having anyone read it aloud or explain it. There is all but unanimous agreement that the party is bound. Therefore, except possibly in the case of an emergency, the party must employ self-protection by procuring someone to read aloud the document or to explain or translate it. However, if the other party is deceitful about its contents . . . [m]ost of the cases have held that such a contract may at least be avoided. 7 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 29.9, at 409-10 (rev. ed. 2002). See also Sofio v. Hughes, 162 A.D.2d 518, 556 N.Y.S.2d 717, 719 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Mesa v. Poole, 127 Ga. App. 426,193 S.E.2d
holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding that a binding contract was formed when plaintiff was invited to tailor limitedliability release to fit his needs no suggestion was made that release constituted a counteroffer or that plaintiff was required to execute the specific release as a condition of settlement and communications clearly contemplated that plaintiff would change portions that were unacceptable holding that the plaintiff could not avoid his contractual obligation because he read at only a sixthgrade level holding plaintiff could not avoid release absent evidence he made reasonable effort to have document read to him holding that an effort of the defendant by words of persuasion alone to induce the plaintiff to grant him the favor of sexual intercourse was not an assault