In the Canadian case, "Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning" the Ontario Court of Appeal held the signature would only bind if it was reasonable for the party relying on the signed document to believe the signer assented to onerous terms (i.e. unlike Grogan, where the document is intended to have contractual effect). By contrast, in 2004 in "Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd", the High Court of Australia challenged the "Clendenning" decision robustly and affirmed L'Estrange. In the UK, in "Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd" Moore-Bick LJ was at pains to emphasise that "L’Estrange" sets out ‘an important principle of English law which underpins the whole of commercial life; any erosion of it would have serious repercussions.’