Opinion ID: 2621198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Overreaching

Text: The second main proposition underlying the court's decision is its conclusion that Holland America overreached when the contract was formed. I think any overreaching is irrelevant here. The court should distinguish contractual terms which give a party no opportunity to protect itself. Perhaps overreaching can vitiate particular contract provisions. For example, many of the cruise contract cases deal with choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses. [68] In those cases, the passenger is bound by the contract terms as soon as the adverse event occurs. Assuming that it is appropriate in those sorts of cases to determine whether there was overreaching when the contract was formed, this case instead concerns a time-for-suit clause. The passenger has an opportunity (and an acute interest) post-injury to determine whether to assert a claim and to find out what law controls that claim. [69] Long had one year in which to investigate and sue. That is not an inadequate or unreasonable amount of time. [70] She had every incentive to read her tour contract promptly and ample opportunity to investigate her claim and bring suit within one year. Any possible prejudice the one-year term potentially posed to her could have been avoided with a modicum of diligence during the presumptively sufficient one-year period. The shortness of time in which to seek a refund without forfeiture or in which to seek recission or reformation is of no significance to a contract condition whose adverse consequences can be avoided with modest post-injury effort. The one-year limitations period does not establish overreaching.