With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". They could also reasonably find that respondent was justified in placing confidence in what appellant’s agents told him, because of his long established relations with the company. Bjorklund, 35 Wash, at 444. Although fraud is not alleged in this case, Bjorklund is persuasive for the proposition that a person who does not understand English may in some circumstances be justified in signing the document based on another’s explanation of its contents. See also Rodriguez v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 85 Wn.2d 949, 953, 540 P.2d 1359 (1975) (tolling 60-day appeal period for Spanish-speaking worker’s claim while his interpreter was unavailable, since “he was incapable of understanding the nature of the order closing his claim”); Gaines v. Jordan, 64 Wn.2d 661, 663-64, 393 P.2d 629 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Viewing these Washington cases in conjunction

A: holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract
B: holding that plaintiff gas company may not properly withhold payment on any contract independent of contract alleged to have been breached by defendants
C: holding sightimpaired lessor of gas station could avoid contract where lessee read contract aloud omitting two provisions
D: holding that even though plaintiffs did not read the contracts before signing ordinarily when a competent adult having the ability to read and understand an instrument signs a contract he will be held to be on notice of all the provisions contained in that contract and will be bound thereby
C.