The Court itself explained just what that meant, and its effect:
A contract which fails to satisfy either of the fair notice requirements when they are imposed is unenforceable as a matter of law. See Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 509B10 (Tex. 1993); see also U.S. Rentals, Inc. v. Mundy Serv. Corp., 901 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ denied). One fair notice requirement, the express negligence doctrine, requires that "the intent of the parties must be specifically stated in the four corners of the contract." Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex. 1987).[1] The other requirement, of conspicuousness, mandates "that something must appear on the face of the [contract] to attract the attention of a reasonable person when he looks at it." Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 508 (quoting Ling & Co. v. Trinity Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 482 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex. 1972)). Language may satisfy the conspicuousness requirement by appearing in larger type, contrasting colors, or otherwise calling attention to itself. Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955 S.W.2d 272, 274B75 (Tex. 1997). However, if both contracting parties have actual knowledge of the plan's terms, an agreement can be enforced even if the fair notice requirements were not satisfied. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 508 n.2 (citing Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex. 1990)).Because a plan that does not comply is not enforceable, non-subscribers with such plans should review them quickly.