52 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
the cancellation of the contract concerned is not effected. In other 
words, there is no withdrawal unless conditions relative thereto are 
complied with. For instance, if a withdrawal provision permits a 
member to withdraw by giving 30 days' notice prior to a certain 
date, a notice is void that fails to give the full 30 days, and the 
attempt to withdraw fails. 89 
SIGNING MARKETING CONTRACTS 
Even though a contract is signed without being read by persons 
capable of reading it, and although the claim is made that its con- 
tents were misrepresented, it is valid and enforcible if signed under 
normal conditions. 90 The law proceeds upon the theory that a per- 
son must use some care and caution to protect himself and that he 
can not complain of situations made possible by his own carelessness. 
If the signer of a contract is illiterate and the contract is misrep- 
resented to him it may be rescinded. 91 If a contract is signed with 
the understanding that it is not to become effective until the happen- 
ing of a certain event, such as obtaining the approval of a third 
person, the contract fails if the approval is not obtained, 92 or if the 
delivery of the contract was conditional and the grower was to have 
an opportunity of reading it before the contract became effective, it 
fails if this opportunity is not given. 93 Close questions of fact may 
arise under circumstances like these, and in a Virginia case the court 
refused to believe testimony that the contract had been conditionally 
delivered and hence held it binding. 94 
A wife or husband is not by virtue of the marriage relationship 
alone the agent of the other to sign a marketing contract ; 95 but if 
either had been given or had been represented by the other as having 
authority to market the crops grown, a marketing contract signed 
by the husband or the wife, as the case may be, would be binding 
on the other. 96 
CONTRACTS OBTAINED BY FORCE OR FRAUD 
If solicitors, in seeking to get producers to sign contracts, make 
statements which are material and false relating to the affairs of the 
association, contracts thus obtained could be set aside by the pro- 
ducers in suits promptly brought for this purpose, or if such produc- 
ers gave notice promptly to the association after discovery of the 
fraud that they regarded the contracts as invalid because of fraud 
and then refused to recognize them in any way, they could defend 
suits brought against them by the association for failure to abide 
by the contracts by showing fraud in their procurement ; 9r and 
89 Grays Harbor Dairymen's Ass'n v. Engen, 130 Wash. 169, 226 P. 496 ; Egyptian Seed 
Growers' Exchange v. Hollinger, 238 111. App. 178. 
90 Pittman v. Tobacco Growers Co-op. Ass'n. 187 N. C. 340. 121 S. E. 634; Tobacco 
Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Chilton, 190 N. C. 602, 130 S. E. 312 ; Barron G. Collier, Inc., 
v. Stebbins. 236 Mich. 147, 210 N. W. 264. 
81 Dunbar v. Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 190 N. C. 608. 130 S. E. 505. 
92 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Battle, 187 N. C. 260. 121 S. E. 629. 
•» Georgia Cotton Growers Co-op. Ass'n v. Smith, 163 Ga. 761. 137 S. E. 233. 
94 Elmore v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers' Ass'n, 145 Va. 42, ]32 S. E. 521. 
65 Waken v. Davis, 112 Okl. 23, 239 P. 659; Sladkin v. Ruby, N. J. , 135 
A. 880. 
"Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Garth. 21S. Ky. 391. 291 S. W. 367. 
97 Kansas Wbeat Growers' Ass'n v. Massey. 123 Kan. 1S3. 253 P. 1093 : Kansas Wheat 
Growers' Ass'n v. Rowan, 123 Kan. 169. 254 P. 326; Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. 
Ass'n v. Rogers, Ind. App. , 150 N. E. 384. 
