On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Additionally, I would think that " A person's defined privileges are > > assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to > > the contrary." would be construed as allowing explicit (but not > > implicit) waivers. > > Unless I misunderstand, that was my point. Privileges could be > waived, rights couldn't. (Then again, the only privilege was the > useless R101 i.)
I don't think that there is a precedent or case wherein a voluntary, minor, limited and/or escapable waiver of a right was found to "substantially limit" said rights. But these were more focused on defining "substantial": e.g. imposing a CFJ limit of 5/week was not a substantial limitation as it was a slight formal delay (slight compared to the length of time that cases typically take). I don't know that anything's come out and said "yes, it CAN (or CANNOT) be possible to waive the rights. But I'm also particularly weak on the variety of precedents under the Contracts era so I may be missing some. Another line of thought on voluntary waivers is that Agora must PROVIDE THE MEANS to exercise rights, and not limit these means, but what is done with those means is up to the players. For example, we can't *make* someone review a change to agreement, we can just provide the text of the change. -G.
