Fraud or Overreaching Sample Clauses

Fraud or Overreaching. According to Plaintiff, the sole purpose of the September 10, 2007 Agreement was to change the name of the investment account holder to Plaintiff’s trust and, because of this, he “had no duty to read [the agreement] searching for the address that Defendants slipped in.” (Opp’n at 19.) Plaintiff also submitted a declaration asserting that no one explained to him the contents of the September 10, 2007 Agreement and that he was not given an opportunity to revise any of the provisions in this agreement. (Opp’n, Declaration of Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx “Xxxxx Decl.,” ¶ 10.) The circumstances surrounding inclusion of the forum selection clause in the September 10, 2007 Agreement do not give rise to either fraud or overreaching. In Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. x. Xxxxx, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), the Supreme Court enforced a forum selection clause contained in a cruise line’s passenger contract ticket, despite the non-negotiable nature of the clause and the parties’ difference in bargaining power. Carnival Cruise, 499 U.S. at 587, 595. The Ninth Circuit has held that Carnival Cruise stands for the proposition that “a differential in power or education on a non-negotiated contract will not vitiate a forum selection clause.” Xxxxxx, 362 F.3d at 1141 (concluding that allegations of power differential and non-negotiability are insufficient to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of enforcing forum selection clauses”). Faced with this precedent, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges fraud or overreaching because the September 10, 2007 Agreement was a form contract and because Plaintiff had less experience than Defendants in these matters, those arguments must necessarily fail. Plaintiff arguably had more bargaining power than the plaintiffs in Carnival Cruise and Xxxxxx because Plaintiff was a desirable client who approached Defendants with a substantial sum of money that he wished to invest.