displays different vendors different products and she filled out information card at that disability checks and then in two thousand and four they contacted her they demonstrated the cherubs of her in two thousand and four and at that point she decided she was not interested it was simply too expensive so years later around two thousand and eight after her husband passed away she got some assurance settlement she has headed metal cherry yeah i think she responded to an end in a disability magazine called him and said i am interested i still like to see your product so the measure came and demonstrated the motorized wheelchair to her in her home at least twice in two thousand and eight and two thousand eventually decided she wanted by the state sent her the contract she signed it in her home sent it to their place of business in arizona immediately upon the delivery of the the wheelchair share rather than soliciting this week or so was surprisingly very meager turned out to have solicited heather share by contacting them and expressing interest and i guess as the court was soliciting them therefore yack did not apply and better share was not required to provide any three day right cancellation and i was in law school and his remains so one of my favorite rules of statutory just very simple what was the mischief that this statute was designed going public policy would sign right now you're too young perhaps to remember this but before there were trade figures and before there were these all these cars that we fill out and then we end up you know getting twenty seven requests for demonstrations of good guards or whatever sold these big  beat housewife because we all knew housewives at those point that you know they were going to be impulsive would sign a contract and three days later twenty four hours leaving the site i don't need  there is here your client certainly was stood for a number of peter's and thought about it and reconsidered it and looked down it and tried it out and had it demonstrated multiple times and then finally made the decision this solicitations sale that the consumer has the right answer good reason bad reason it doesn't matter one of the mischief's that the statute just decides to press is simply unsupervised sales out there away from us of an established place of business and supervised by law fests who are out there perhaps making representatives that can't be verified so it's more than just the door to door high pressure would this case were it decided in your favor extend the application of these kinds of state laws and the application of the federal statu every single sale that sound how had it its beginning of which i assume there are many on the car initiated in this instance by the consumer who asks for information and sometimes the information would be a demonstration is that mean that that if they come t protected their then i think the intent of the statute is is abolished the protections are destroyed so that the proclaim that the seller with a lead doesn't change anything if they are nobody comes to our place of business or is a lawyer voice meat pies miniature in that situation well i don't know it depends on the facts it depends on how much pad tech there is so i can't tell you the story tells whether you need to provide the three day right or cancellation i can only tell you if the end of the transaction looking backwards that kind of bag intensive analysis is just creates i'd certainly not picked on predictability that kind of a rule may help manage here in this contract but i think if there was only one payment i would say no that was not made in some us in this ng but if you and i understand this doesn't apply to best buy or whoever but if you pay half of it six months and you don't half pay the other half ever or until the end of the contract but if you do you'll get step with the interest and then just before the end of the contract to avoid paying any interest you pay a second i think it's ok guys but that's you your choice i think if it's capable of being paid the whole solicitation sale act should be interpreted to apply to the situation very meager did not solicit medicare yeah therefore their failure to provide the care the right of the cancellation was an error in that should provide problem yes that the parties agree that the federal rule doesn't provide any private right of action i want this says the failure to see a notice of cancellation is a deceptive act a practice that fits right into the arizona project which says that this which which basically prohibits deceptive activity and practices so that's a deceptive act in practice under the federal it's a deceptive better practice under the consumer  suggested that you need to focus on where the solicitation occurred to decide who so this problem is the arizona statute in question doesn't just talk about solicitation it does fellow out other things that all must happen in order for the home solicitation actually apply yes one the seller must solicit sale but the second thing is that the buyer's agreement or offer to purchase is made at a home other than that of the person so list at the home other than the person's listing so this case the person is the corporations of corporation is accused of soliciting the offer or remit to purchase has to be made someplace of in their business and it would i would suggest this court there's no dispute of fact but that the offer or the acceptance was made at their place of business the other thing is and that the offer is there given to seller and his representative where was the offer or acceptance you have by mary meeker it was delivered either two ways either she picks up the phone in the spring of two thousand and nine and says yes i want the chair ok it's either an offer that's an acceptance they didn't mail her an estimate and a contract for her to sign and mail back so where's the offer or the acceptance by mary meeker you know that it's done by sending it to the home office in tucson arizona of miniature so that fact would take it out of this statute because the offer or the acceptance was made at their home it was not made at a place other than the home of the seller and then so you have that occurring and because you have to go through all that interpretation counsel suggestion that you focus on the solicitation by where it's done that this kind of makes the question of who solicits whom irrelevant in redundant but it's not it's there in the first line of that statute so that still has to be considered as something separate apart from where the offer an acceptance is made the final part of this statute which we think  not would take medicare out of it is that the purchase price is payable in installments or the debt incurred for the payment of the purchase price is payable in stocks not is paid in installments which we have actually here we had payments that were made in installments by miramichi she made a couple minute medicare made some payable means i would suggest to the court that means the obligation or the rights under the contract the contract was signed as to how that purchase price was to be made so unless it's got language in there about installments then the transaction does not fall within the was yes and what we tried to get ahold of medicare if this issue of paying that was not not easy to do and not successful to do  said the point there is state and local officials who are needed with the trade commission are trying to ensure that consumers who purchased from a door to door sell or something they do not want do not  or cannot afford and there should be a court right to see if those elements are all here it is something that mary meeker wanted at least since two thousand and four she wanted a motorized wheelchair something she needed she has multiple sclerosis and something she can afford because she obtained proceeds on a life insurance policy from her husband so the mischief here was not present in this case she was well protected by virtue of the fact it was a long drawn out process plenty of time for her to change her mind plenty of time to go shopping elsewhere compare prices time to the if she had a problem with the sales representative to back which was represented in the contract she could have it clearly wasn't brought up so maybe it's one of those things where it's she's not satisfied with the chair as opposed to is there something that's been breached by the promises about the chair and that leads to the other point here the other claim that she did bring which was under the arizona consumer fraud act which talks about it's a violation for any deception deceptive act for practice fraud false pretense false promise misrepresentation or concealment suppression or omission of any material fact that's very specific and that's very narrowly drawn we have a lot of deceptions omissions fraud about a material fact is that a material fact not to have a particular provision in a contract that's the only with right this does not involve your claim is not that there was something promised about the chair which the chair not something promised about the service of the chair which was not met now the only allegation is that did not have a particular contract term in it right rescission and i would suggest to the court that does not fall within the parameters of the arizona consumer fraud act and it must be remember that nowhere in statute is silent there is no incorporation and i would suggest that silence is deafening because remember we're dealing with arizona which is kind of a maverick state kind of place where our own right invocation cards can be used to register voting doesn't apply because ms meeker solicited them we don't have to address where the contract was completed we don't have to address where it was given to it if a court was to address those i think that