>>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.



If someone presents me with a contract, whether it be for a project, for employment, etc., and I ask if it can be revised, and they say NO, to me that's non-negotiable. They did not want to "negotiate" or compromise changes to the document. If that's not the legal definition of negotiate, so be it.



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


They weren't meant to be legally persuasive. They were presented to offer some help/guidance/recommendations to James and share my past experiences. I repeated mentioned that I was not a lawyer, haven't seen the document, and that if he decides to pursue this, he should consult with a lawyer. What's wrong with that?


- Brian