<P> In cases in which the contract is contained in a railway ticket or other unsigned document, it is necessary to prove that an alleged party was aware, or ought to have been aware, of its terms and conditions . These cases have no application when the document has been signed . When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or, I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not . </P> <P> Maugham LJ concurred, though expressing his regret at the result . He held he was bound to do so . He said the only two possibilities were that the document was signed non est factum, or that the document was induced to be signed by a misrepresentation . </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> There can be no dispute as to the soundness in law of the statement of Mellish LJ in Parker v South Eastern Ry Co, which has been read by my learned brother, to the effect that where a party has signed a written agreement it is immaterial to the question of his liability under it that he has not read it and does not know its contents . That is true in any case in which the agreement is held to be an agreement in writing . <P> (...) </P> <P> In this case it is, in my view, an irrelevant circumstance that the plaintiff did not read, or hear of, the parts of the sales document which are in small print, and that document should have effect according to its terms . I may add, however, that I could wish that the contract had been in a simpler and more usual form . It is unfortunate that the important clause excluding conditions and warranties is in such small print . </P> </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> There can be no dispute as to the soundness in law of the statement of Mellish LJ in Parker v South Eastern Ry Co, which has been read by my learned brother, to the effect that where a party has signed a written agreement it is immaterial to the question of his liability under it that he has not read it and does not know its contents . That is true in any case in which the agreement is held to be an agreement in writing . <P> (...) </P> <P> In this case it is, in my view, an irrelevant circumstance that the plaintiff did not read, or hear of, the parts of the sales document which are in small print, and that document should have effect according to its terms . I may add, however, that I could wish that the contract had been in a simpler and more usual form . It is unfortunate that the important clause excluding conditions and warranties is in such small print . </P> </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr>

Which of the following is not an exception to the parole evidence rule