Originally Posted by
colpuck
It's not merely show. It's provide a preponderance of the evidence that it was UA's SPECIFIC intent here to deceive the OP. At the point that evidence comes out, to wit there has been none, P wins.
Wow, if that's true it's to a completely different standard to any consumer related contract law I'm aware of. So are you saying that if a party relies on negligent information to enter into a contract, unless that is specifically intended to deceive there is no action for anything other than recession?