a) The description did not make clear that it was a "silent" waiver. If you want better analysis of the cases you need to give more explicit factual
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Aug 23 '13, 08:20
|
information. Your description did not state that there was no explicit waiver and did not clarify that the waiver was "deemed to occur" by giving the phone number. Second, my "sympathy" was not to the claimant but to the argument when put in context. Consumers should have the benefit of the doubt for an inexplicit waiver because they are not represented by counsel and not experts on their rights. It has an absolute bearing on how this case should be interpreted. The laws are there to protect the consumer and I view it very differently if the contract is not explicit in its terms.
|