A person who has the ability and the opportunity to read a document before signing it is contractually bound by the terms of the document even if the person signed it without reading it. The signer cannot avoid liability based on the argument that no explanation was given to him of the terms of the contract.

Even if a person is unable to read or understand the terms of the agreement, he is still bound by the terms of the agreement since he should have tried to obtain an explanation of the agreement. The exception to this rule is that if the other party knows, or has reason to know, that the signer cannot read or has a limited education, some Courts would hold that the other contracting party should have read the document to the other party or explained the terms.

What does it mean to rescind a contract?

Rescission of a contract means to put the parties back in the same circumstances they were in before making the agreement. If the agreement involved the sale of goods, the goods would be returned to the seller and the money for the goods would be returned to the buyer.

What if one party to a contract knows of a fact that has a critical bearing on the transaction, but fails to disclose this fact to the other party?

Generally, the law does not attach any significance to nondisclosure. Thus, generally, an agreement of the parties is not affected by the fact that one party did not disclose information to the other party. This is the general rule. The theory is that it is preferable that the party lacking the knowledge ask questions of the party with the knowledge rather than imposing some sort of duty on the party with the knowledge to volunteer the information. For example, Jones wants to buy Smith’s house. Jones, prior to signing the contract, makes an inspection of the house and sees several cracks in the roof and walls. He assumes that these cracks are just the result of the house settling. Smith makes no disclosure one way or another about the cracks. Jones buys the house and later discovers that the house has severe foundation problems. He sues Smith for the damages incurred in repairing the foundation problems. Under the general rule, Smith would be under no duty to disclose the foundation problems to Jones.

reference

http://contracts.uslegal.com/frequently-asked-questions/