[matrix]

This is also the case in US. Contract formation requires that the signing party has an opportunity to read the contract. If the contract is subject to litigation and the signing party can show they did not have an opportunity to read it, the contract will be thrown out. It is especially frowned upon to misrepresent the contract ("Don't worry, it's just some routine boilerplate") and not provide a copy before the person signs it.

[sneak]

I can’t wait until high res 24/7 lifelogging of audio and video is common so that these sorts of things are documented regularly.

[jolmg]

Not sure why you're downvoted. It probably has to do with the implication that it might be a government or a private company that is doing the logging, but that doesn't need to be the case. We could develop a culture where we record everything around us and store the recording on our own devices, accessible only by us.

[itronitron]

the lifelogging will probably have a EULA that prevents everyone from using any audio or video in a legal dispute

[mcherm]

Deepfakes.

[cheschire]

That sounds like a textbook case of trading away privacy to get security. No thanks.

[TomMarius]

How do you show that they didn't tell you?

[dboreham]

This could be why "serious contracts" have a place on each page for you to initial.

[sjy]

You swear to it in writing or in the witness box.