"Glenna Rose" wrote in message
news:fc.003d094101e2d1723b9aca002f56ee3a.1e2d1c4@p mug.org...
lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.

If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they
shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of
that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone,
anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they
have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your
own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is
your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down
the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental
agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed
on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car,
etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the
presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no
such thing as standard.

Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed,
especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the
end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign
one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say
whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about
it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its
employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we
should do more reading for comprehension.

Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed
ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a
hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was
corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property
without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in
height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what
they actually wrote!

Glenna

Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob