A Woman Sought to Set Aside a Mortgage on the Grounds

A woman sought to set aside a mortgage on the grounds of misrepresentation, undue influence, and non est factum. She had been persuaded to enter into that mortgage contract with a mortgage company by her doctor. Which of the following is true with regard to these challenges to the mortgage contract?

A) If she were influenced to sign the mortgage by her doctor and the mortgage benefited the doctor, the court would presume undue influence.
B) If she were influenced to sign the mortgage by her doctor and the court found undue influence, the mortgage would be void and she wouldn't have to pay the mortgage company.
C) If she failed to read the mortgage agreement, the mortgage would be void on the basis of non est factum.
D) If the person who misled her as to the contents of the mortgage agreement honestly thought what he was stating was correct, she could sue for only damages, not rescission.
E) If the court found that there was undue influence by her doctor, who obtained the money from the mortgage, she would not have to repay the mortgage company.