Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Doesn't matter where it was signed...the key part is where and how the solicitation took place.
...

---

Actually, if you look at the statute I quoted earlier, said statute applies only if all of the following are true:

1. The seller asked OP to sign at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location;
2. The signed agreement was given to the seller at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location; and
3. The transaction is consummated at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Actually, if you look at the statute I quoted earlier, said statute applies only if all of the following are true:

1. The seller asked OP to sign at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location;
2. The signed agreement was given to the seller at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location; and
3. The transaction is consummated at a place other than at the seller’s fixed location.

---

But, the seller did ask the OP to sign at the sellers fixed location, the signed agreement was given to the seller at their fixed location, and the transaction was consummated at the sellers fixed location.

That's what the OP is dealing with, not the dream world where the contract was signed somewhere else, but the reality that it was signed at the sellers place of business. So is it possible to give the OP advice based on the facts, and not based on what could have happened?

I see the point AK lawyer is getting at... exact wording is important, since she was trying to use this statute to claim an easy way out... and for this woman to be able to legitimately claim (the three day cooling off period) what she's trying to claim to get out of it... all three of those conditions would have to be true... not just one... not two... but all three... and in this case none of them apply. And there is no way shape or means she can use that statute to change her mind.

Her only real option is to offer to buy her release out of the contract for an agreed upon fee.. or technically they can take her to court to have it enforced and ruin her credit by reporting a delinquency and if they turn it over to a collection agency... a collection. And with that she'll never get a loan from a bank or credit union until its paid.

Yes my wife routinely denies loan applications for that very reason, no matter what their income is..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I see the point AK lawyer is getting at....exact wording is important, since she was trying to use this statute to claim an easy way out.......and for this woman to be able to legitimately claim (the three day cooling off period) what she's trying to claim to get out of it...all three of those conditions would have to be true....not just one...not two...but all three.....and in this case none of them apply.

---

I do understand that, but no one on this site has told her, from what I read, that the 3 day rule applies. In fact, everyone has told her that it doesn't. So I was confused why the law that doesn't apply, was being brought up, when it's already been made clear that it doesn't apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alty

I do understand that, but no one on this site has told her, from what I read, that the 3 day rule applies. In fact, everyone has told her that it doesn't. So I was confused why the law that doesn't apply, was being brought up, when it's already been made clear that it doesn't apply.

---

Well I know I for one made a comment of the key part of it being where it was actually solicited where that was only one part of three that's required to happen before it applies. Where all three conditions HAD to be met or that statute did not apply at all. And thus the thing about legalese where specific words have specific meaning. Even if it might sound the same to Joe Average it really might mean very different meanings.

You know the old "close only counts when you are playing horse shoes and hand grenades" thing.

I guess because further answers seemed to imply she was trying to use a defense to weasel out of a legal contract that she signed where the entire pretense had no legal basis from the beginning.

Or maybe I'm just digging myself in a deeper hole.

The women feels she was misrepresented in this affair. She declares
The three day rule was not in written form anywhere in the contract.
Furthermore it was not disclosed to her verbally. Of course her opinion
Of being just a layperson is no exculpation of the law.

Sounds to me like its nothing more than buyers remourse and not representation at all... and she just doesn't want to honor something she entered into knowing what all was involved...

I've known too many people that thinks a personal inconvienience gives them the right to do anything they want... be it a lease... a mortgage or a contract.

And the fact that according to that statute... it never applied... because they apparently never solicite memberships outside of their place of business.

Naif of life. I guess

Pastor, do you not understand that the three day rule does not apply in this case?

"The women feels she was misrepresented in this affair. She declares
the three day rule was not in written form anywhere in the contract.
Furthermore it was not disclosed to her verbally. Of course her opinion
of being just a layperson is no exculpation of the law."

Pastor, you aren't "getting it." Whether the 3-day rule was disclosed does not matter unless she was approached AND signed the contract in her home. If she she approached the studio or the studio approached her OUTSIDE her home the 3-day rule does not apply. She could have taken the contract home, reviewed it, signed it there, taken it back - and the 3 day rule would NOT apply unless the dance studio basically knocked on her door first and asked her if she was interested in lessons.

For example, you go to a car dealership and sign a contract to buy a car. The three day rule does not apply, even if you take the contract home and memorize it and then sign it. You were not approached to make the purchase in your own home.

A book salesman comes to your house and sells you books. The three day rule does apply.

Does that it make it more clear?

This is been very enlightened subject for me. Thanks

Quote:

---

This is been very enlightened subject for me. Thanks

---

But do you understand that the 3-day rule does not apply under these circumstances?