 An important case regarding standard form agreements, and especially exclusion clauses contained in standard form agreements, is the case of Tilden Rentecar and Klendening, which is from all the way back in 1978, and is a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in Ontario. The plaintiff was John Klendening. He sued Tilden Rentecar. John Klendening had rented a vehicle from Tilden at the Vancouver Airport. So at the airport, he signed Tilden's standard car rental contract. So he quickly signed it without reading the agreement, and he did purchase the optional collision insurance coverage. So what that coverage deals with is that if you are in an accident and the car is damaged, then this coverage would cover the cost of the damage to the car. So what happened? So let's say that's the car that he rented, which isn't actually the car, because that car didn't exist in 1978, but let's just say that's the car that he rented. So he got that car, he drove around, and one night he went out for a drink. So Mr. Klendening testified that he didn't have very much to drink. We don't know exactly how much, but he didn't say it was very much. But he did get into an accident, which caused some serious damage to the vehicle. And Mr. Klendening was also charged with impaired driving, and he eventually pled guilty to impaired driving. So that was a criminal action separate from this civil lawsuit. Now, because Mr. Klendening had consumed some alcohol leading up to the accident, Tilden Rentakar refused to cover the cost of the damage to the vehicle. So they were making Mr. Klendening liable for the damage to the vehicle. So Tilden Rentakar was relying on a clause that was buried in the fine print of the contract. On the flip side of the contract. The wording was not exactly the way I have here, it was a little bit more complicated, but this essentially gives you an idea of what the legal wording was meant to do. So the wording I have here is that collision insurance coverage will not apply if the customer has consumed any quantity of alcohol. So the key word there was any, whether it be one drink or half a drink or 10 or 12 drinks, it didn't matter if there was any alcohol consumed and then that collision insurance coverage would not apply. So again Tilden denied coverage for the damage based on that particular exclusion clause. When this case was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, they said that Mr. Klendening's signature on the contract was not a true acceptance of the contract terms and it was not because they felt that this particular clause was onerous and unusual and that such an onerous and unusual term requires reasonable notice to the customer and also reasonable opportunity for the customer to understand and appreciate what he was doing. So Mr. Klendening had neither the reasonable notice nor the reasonable opportunity to understand or appreciate what he was doing, therefore that clause is invalid and Tilden had to cover the cost of the damage to the vehicle.