There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.

Lord Denning, as a young barrister, represented the company in this action, but later - for instance, speaking in Parliament in 1977 - made clear that he regarded the decision as wrong.

Miss L'Estrange thus refused to continue paying her installments and brought an action in the Carnarvonshire County Court at Llandudno for the sums already paid, arguing the machine was not fit for purpose.

The judge held, following Lord Herschell LC in Richardson, Spence & Co v Rowntree,[2] that Mr Graucob was not entitled to rely on the exclusion clause.

Alfred Thompson Denning, at that time a barrister, represented F Graucob Ltd. Fifty years later, as Master of the Rolls, Denning described the case as emblematic of a "bleak winter for our law of contract" in his judgment on George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd. Scrutton LJ found that the exclusion clause formed part of the contract.

It is unfortunate that the important clause excluding conditions and warranties is in such small print.The case still holds significance, not because it would be decided the same today in relation to a consumer, but because it establishes the basic principle that one is bound by their signature, as a general starting point.

If the same facts arose again today, the case would be regulated by unfair terms legislation, and Miss L'Estrange would have won, despite having signed.

But when one party is a consumer, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 section 6(2)(a) stipulates that the warranty about fitness cannot be excluded.

In any event, one commentator, Spencer, argued that Graucob's representatives knew Miss L’Estrange was making a mistake, and therefore should not have won.

[7] In the Canadian case, Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning,[8] the Ontario Court of Appeal held the signature would only bind if it was reasonable for the party relying on the signed document to believe the signer assented to onerous terms (i.e. unlike Grogan, where the document is intended to have contractual effect).

In the UK, in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd,[10] Moore-Bick LJ was at pains to emphasise that L’Estrange set out 'an important principle of English law which underpins the whole of commercial life; any erosion of it would have serious repercussions'.