NO.
That was true in the 80's, not now. The "word" is being spoken to idiots. They will hear "the word" and may even know the definition of the words being spoken to them, but they are too stupid to grasp the issues.
I know this, because all of you are just the same as the people you are speaking to.
I did not created peace and love by discharging these 11 public debts so far.......and some Quebecers I know, have started this as well, and it seems to bother some.......what would happen if 10% of the crowd are doing this ?
Wouldn't his amended contract be a counter-offer? Un-disputed therefore valid? Or is the point made that his signature was acceptance of their terms valid?
Janick Paquette.....you've heard that ^^^^..... ?
If 10% of the crowd, starts discharging public debts, things would change.... :)
That won't happen, too much stupid on the way :D
Eamonn, I think full disclosure is only relevant when one has full liability. It seems that limiting the liabilty is directly proportionate to limiting the disclosure. :-D
Would it then be the case that all contracts are negotiable and it was the banks own negligence that led to their mistake? Ignorance is no excuse etc...?