[sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Paul Dickson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: SAC-Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:39:40 -0700
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:39:02 -0700, Jeff Hopkins wrote:
> 4. This issue of waivers has not been discussed with an attorney
> specializing in such issues.
> 6. Waivers are unlikely to offer any significant protection against lawsuits.
>
> 7. Waivers may have the opposite effect in case of an injury giving
> the appearance that the club is hiding something and shrinking from
> responsibility.
Please excuse this absurd thought:
If waivers aren't valid, how can we discuss it with an attorney
specializing in them?
;-)
-Paul
- Follow-Ups:
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- References:
- [sac-forum] Call for Observation - Sagittarius
- From: AJ Crayon
- [sac-forum] Waivers
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers
- From: Thad Robosson
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Jeff Hopkins
Other related posts:
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- » [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-forum] Call for Observation - Sagittarius
- From: AJ Crayon
- [sac-forum] Waivers
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers
- From: Thad Robosson
- [sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Jeff Hopkins