Again, I don't remember the case law on this, but that certainly strengthens the argument by a LOT, because it establishes that both parties in fact understood and agreed upon the change of terms. It eliminates the argument that Scruit either changed t he term after it was signed, or that there was no "meeting of the minds" to begin with, because they both wanted 2 different terms. That would also firmly legitimize your belief that the counter guy or manager was authorized to make such changes. Whether or not he is actually authorized by uHaul is still a jury question though. Depending on the circumstances, that might be really easy to prove, and it might be impossible. Is this an actual claim, or just a hypothetical?