>If they provided you a non-negotiable contract


I just wanted to comment on this phrase.

Contracts by definition cannot be non-negotiable. i.e., there has to be a bargain. If one assents to the terms of a contract, there has been a bargain, there has been negotiation. If a bargain does not exist, there can be no contract. This is true under the common law, which this case governs and the UCC, which covers the sales of goods.

Suffice it to say that just because something is in writing or something has been omitted from the writing is NOT determinative. At best, it is probative.

There are provisions in the law (statute of frauds, UCC, etc) that make provisions for sorting out the terms that the parties INTENDED to be bound to. Ascertaining the intent of the parties is far more determinative than the pure writing. This is where the lawyer have to come into the picture.

I have learned in law school that even the word "if" can be parsed. If it seems like an open and shut case, a lawyer can quickly provide you arguments on both sides of the issue that will cast doubt on your conclusion.

In reading your posts in this thread, I did not find much in the way of legally persuasive arguments.