On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Additionally, I would think that " A person's defined privileges are > assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to > the contrary." would be construed as allowing explicit (but not > implicit) waivers.
Unless I misunderstand, that was my point. Privileges could be waived, rights couldn't. (Then again, the only privilege was the useless R101 i.)
