On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
The way you've written it makes it sound (to me anyway) like explicitly withholding consent can override any agreement specified by the contract. When you say "includes both" there's no notion that one overrides the other and no clear way of determining scope of "consent" nor the relative precedence of different acts of consent. (this is an existing big problem with "consent" in general - this just seems to clarify it in a way that's a little broken). -G.