K.D. v ETS, intent p. 14, SC, NY, 1976 Facts: Plaintiff took LSAT twice, in 73 and 74. His score went up 238 points and he had major similarities with the person who sat next to him. Each time he took the test he had to sign a registration form which says “I accept the conditions set forth in the Bulletin.” In the Bulletin ETS reserves the right to cancel any test score if they feel it its validity is in question. ETS canceled the score and he is suing to stop them from canceling the score and forcing them to forward it on. K.D. claims not to have intended to be bound by the term of the contract. That is not relevant because objectively it looks to others that the contract is binding.
General Rule: Issue: Is the clause reserving to defendant itself the right to cancel plaintiff’s test score if there is a question about its validity, and requiring him to take a retest in such event, so unfair and unreasonable that the court, having found it a part of a contract of adhesion (a contract that is so one-sided that seems it was not bargained), will disregard it by means of one or more of the pretexts above. No, motion dismissed To the extent that defendant can accurately predict the aptitude of a candidate for law school by means of its test results, it performs a highly valuable service not only to the law schools but to the public as well. Moreover, the accuracy of its predictions is defendant’s sloe stock in trade. The less accurate as a forecaster its test are, the less value they have to the law schools. Thus, if defendant reasonably believed that the test scores of plaintiff as scored on the April, 1974 test, did not accurately reflect his aptitude for law school, it acted within its right to protect its own image as well as its obligation to the schools who are its clients in canceling plaintiff’s score and requiring him to take a retest.
Holding: Reasoning: