Frederic L. Paterson v. Mildred E. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Frederic L. Paterson v. Mildred E. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 1983–2023 · 3 courts · …one who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions. at p. 951 ✓
26 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: District 4, Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO v. NLRB (cadc, 2023-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) District 4, Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO v. NLRB
D.C. Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
one who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.
cited Cited as authority (rule) White v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts
D.D.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
“One who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.” Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. World Savings Bank, Fsb
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
Mr. Davis’s breach of contract allegation, based on a single sentence of the Note taken out of context, is unreasonable because it is flatly contradicted by the express terms of the Note. “[0]ne who signs a contract has a duty to read it and is obligated according to its terms.” Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962); Watson v. Gold N Diamonds, Inc., 736 F.Supp.2d 266, 269 (D.D.C.2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. Gold N Diamonds, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962); Pers Travel, Inc. v. Canal Square Assoc., 804 A.2d 1108, 1110 (D.C.2002); Holzman v. Fiola Blum, Inc., 125 Md.App. 602 , 726 A.2d 818, 831 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. Gold N Diamonds Inc.
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green v. American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Absent a showing of fraud or duress, parties are bound by the agreements they sign, without regard to whether they regret their decisions after the fact.” Johnson v. Penn Camera Exch., 583 F.Supp.2d 81, 86 (D.D.C.2008) (citing Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (Afl-Cio)
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Absent a showing of fraud or duress, parties are bound by the agreements they sign, without regard to whether they regret their decisions after the fact.” Johnson v. Penn Camera Exch., 583 F. Supp. 2d 81, 86 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Peterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Shelton v. the Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
D.D.C. · 2008 · confidence medium
Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962); Pers Travel, Inc. v. Canal Square Assoc., 804 A.2d 1108, 1110 (D.C.2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. Insignia/ESG, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2002 · confidence medium
The court in Nur rejected a position similar to the plaintiffs, stating that “ ‘[o]ne who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.’ That [the plaintiff] may not have comprehended the implications of his decision is irrelevant as to whether the agreement is valid.” 142 F.Supp.2d at 51 (quoting Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nur v. K.F.C., USA, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2001 · confidence medium
First, under basic contract law, "[o]ne who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions." Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burleson v. UNITED TITLE & ESCROW CO., INC.
D.C. · 1983 · confidence medium
“One who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.” Paterson v. Reeves, 113 U.S. App.D.C. 74, 75, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Johnson
D.C. · 1976 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Paterson v. Reeves, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 74 , 75, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Diamond Housing Corporation v. Robinson
D.C. · 1969 · confidence medium
Paterson v. Reeves, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 74 , 75, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCarthy v. Cahill
D.D.C. · 1966 · confidence medium
If so, any knowledge that might have been gained by such an investigation is considered as gained, see Palace Laundry Dry Cleaning Co. v. Cole, 41 A.2d 231, 232 (Munic.App.D.C.1945) (dictum), because the general rule is “[o]ne who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions,” Paterson v. Reeves, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 74 , 75, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (1962).
cited Cited "see" Shatteen v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation
D.D.C. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962) (“One who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.”).
discussed Cited "see" Coon v. Wood
D.D.C. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shelton v. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 74, 80 (D.D.C.2008) ("[UJnder both D.C. and federal law one who signs a contract has a duty to read it and is obligated according to its terms.” (citing Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962); Pers Travel, Inc. v. Canal Square Assoc., 804 A.2d 1108, 1110 (D.C.2002))). 5 .
discussed Cited "see" Fox v. Computer World Services Corp.
D.D.C. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962) (“One who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions.”). 1 Fourth, that Fox received and signed the Agreement electronically does not render it unconscionable: “a contract ... may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001 (a). *99 Fifth, Fox’s alleged lack of knowledge about C2 and CWS’s co-employment relationship is not relevant to the enforceability of th…
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. Penn Camera Exchange
D.D.C. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paterson v. Reeves, 304 F.2d 950, 951 (D.C.Cir.1962) (“[o]ne who signs a contract which he has had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions”) (quoting Allied Steel & Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 277 F.2d 907, 913 (6th Cir.1960)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frederic L. PATERSON, Appellant,
v.
Mildred E. REEVES, Appellee
16727.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 23, 1962.
304 F.2d 950
Mr. Thomas G. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Frederic L. Paterson was on the brief for appellant., Mr. Louis Rabil, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Douglas A. Clark, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appel-lee.
Miller, Washington, Danaher.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In September, 1957, Mildred E. Reeves sued Frederic L. Paterson on two promissory notes. Paterson answered, asserting several defenses and by way of counter-claim asked that he be adjudged entitled to one-half interest in certain lands in Virginia, the title to which stood in the name of the plaintiff. When the case came on for trial early in December, 1959, a settlement was reached after lengthy negotiations and an agreement embodying it was signed by the parties and witnessed by their counsel.

On September 16, 1960, Paterson filed a written motion to vacate and set aside the settlement contract "on the ground of mistake of fact; this defendant believing that it contained a house, barns and 10 acres, whereas, in fact, it did not.” He said he signed the contract without reading it, because he did not have his reading glasses, and also was upset because he had been in an accident the night before and because foreclosure proceedings had been instituted on his homestead. He did not allege fraud, duress or deceit on the part of Mildred Reeves.

At the hearing on the motion, several witnesses testified. Paterson’s then counsel said the contract reflected the terms of settlement to which Paterson had agreed, and that when he signed it he knew what it contained. The other witnesses, except Paterson, substantially agreed. Paterson not only signed the contract, but also initialed a correction therein.

One who signs a contract which he had an opportunity to read and understand is bound by its provisions. Allied Steel and Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 277 F.2d 907, 913 (6th Cir.1960). The absence of glasses necessary for reading is not an excuse for signing a contract without knowing what it contains; the signer could have it read to him or could refuse to sign until he had obtained his glasses. Cf. Rasmus v. A. O. Smith Corp., 158 F.Supp. 70, 85 (D.C.N.D.Iowa 1958)

Paterson also claims he rescinded before Reeves signed. We agree with the trial judge that “The evidence that defendant offers on these points is totally inadequate * *

The denial of the motion to vacate and set aside the settlement contract was based on findings justified by the evidence and was, we think, correct.

Affirmed.