<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sometimes Settling Is Cheaper Than Fighting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/276/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/276</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/276#comment-7043</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/276#comment-7043</guid>
		<description>OAC has never accepted the "we didn't read the fine print" defense as to intent since its inception, even if the other terms and conditions in the fine print were not binding in the UCC's "battle of the forms" sense (i.e., on a communication after acceptance of a purchase order).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OAC has never accepted the &#8220;we didn&#8217;t read the fine print&#8221; defense as to intent since its inception, even if the other terms and conditions in the fine print were not binding in the UCC&#8217;s &#8220;battle of the forms&#8221; sense (i.e., on a communication after acceptance of a purchase order).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
