Can a contract make me wave my rights?

I recently applied for financing for a new heater that i had installed when reading the back of the contract they want me to wave my right to trial by judge and jury and also to any kind of arbitration but it is stated that they still have the right to take me to court. I know they can put anything they want in a contract but is this actually legaly binding, would this stand up in court?

Yes, you can waive rights by way of a contract.

You can contractually waive your rights BUT there are limitations. Some waivers cannot be enforced due to the specific situation.

what specifically was the contract addressing that you might want to sue them for?

Let's all do the wave. Right.

well i just dont like that if anything goes wrong i have no right to go to court whatsoever and i have no right to any arbitration, but they can take ME to court and can take ME to arbitration. What happened was i crossed those parts out on the contract and sent it in and they called me today and said that the contract is invalid because i didnt agree to the whole thing. The parts read as such:

Buyer understands that buyer is voluntarily waiving his/her right to a jury trial or judge trial for any disputes.

The other part reads as such:

Buyer(s) cannot elect to arbitrate and seller shall not be required to arbitrate seller's self-help judicial rememdies of replevin, garnishment, repossession, or foreclosure with respect to property. Provided however, that Seller can elect to arbitrate such claims and, if such election is made, Buyer(s) shall be bound by such election and terms of the arbitration.

Ok, so how are you going to pay for the heater now?

<wave>left

Hey, wait, the wave goes up and down!

You can, of course, obtain your financing with a company that provides more favorable terms for you.

<wave right>

well the funny thing is that the heater was already installed and they accepted the contract at the time with the parts that i crossed out, now they say they wont take the contract because of it so im thinking of calling them and telling them fine i dont want the heater come back and uninstall it, put my old one back in, and ill go with a different company.

Izzletodasmizzl said:

well the funny thing is that the heater was already installed and they accepted the contract at the time with the parts that i crossed out, now they say they wont take the contract because of it so im thinking of calling them and telling them fine i dont want the heater come back and uninstall it, put my old one back in, and ill go with a different company.

Click to expand...

**A: good luck.

really what is their point in making me waive these rights unless they intend to not deal in good faith.

Izzletodasmizzl said:

really what is their point in making me waive these rights unless they intend to not deal in good faith.

Click to expand...

Because court costs a lot of money.
The "changes" you made to the contract would likely not be enforceable by you if it came down to it.

The "changes" you made to the contract would likely not be enforceable by you if it came down to it.

Click to expand...

Why not? I cross out pre-printed sections all the time. If they later claim the pre-printed section is the contract, I would argue the document they have signed is the contract. Who would win? If there is a later claim there was, therefore, not a meeting of the minds, then there is not a contract.

At least that's my understanding.

I don't think that, unless there is some form of acceptance like the clerk watching me as I cross out the portions I don't like and then rings up the sale on the register, the business must accept the changes I make. That's what seems to be happening here. (Even though the OP says the business "accepted" the contract.) How do we put things back to where they were?

Especially if we're talking about a new heater in the winter in a part of the country where there is snow on the ground, there could be a good argument that the terms were ones of adhesion and I find it unlikey a court would find them to be part of the contract if the OP crossed them out before signing. (Not that we know because the OP did not follow the simple instruction of listing his state.)

I am unsure of the outcome in this case, but I like the OPs intended strategy of telling them to accept the contract as written or to pound sand and cancel the whold voidable mess. What will they do then?

tranquility said:

I am unsure of the outcome in this case, but I like the OPs intended strategy of telling them to accept the contract as written or to pound sand and cancel the whold voidable mess. What will they do then?

Click to expand...

From what I can see in this, the financing is independant of the installer so I would bet the installer will simply sue the OP for the money. The installer is a third party (as I understand things) and the contract for financing has no bearing on the OP owing them for the install, unless of course there is some contingency included within the sales contract.

tranquility said:

Why not? I cross out pre-printed sections all the time. If they later claim the pre-printed section is the contract, I would argue the document they have signed is the contract.

Click to expand...

One cannot make unilateral changes to a contract. The changes have to be accepted before they become binding (on either party). In this case, the changes were NOT accepted.

One cannot make unilateral changes to a contract. The changes have to be accepted before they become binding (on either party). In this case, the changes were NOT accepted.

Click to expand...

Agreed as to the first part, but not as to the second as that is a question of fact. My understanding is the pre-printed contract was handed to the OP. He crossed out some portions, signed it and gave the contract back. The heater was then installed. I think a jury could very well find there was an acceptance.

As to justalayman's point, I think he is correct about the third-party issue. I also agree it is usually the case that, in such a circumstance there is a portion of the contract separating the two events. However, we only have one contract in our fact scenario and note that the OP probably conditioned his agreement on the entire agreement. In that case, the analysis is essentially the same.