"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...]
The problem is that you haven't the slightest idea what the intent of this
section of the agreement is. It is saying that if you are aware of a
problem
with the aircraft, yet you fly the aircraft anyway, and that flight
exacerbates the previously existing problem, necessitating a repair before
the aircraft can returned to it's base, you will be responsible for costs
associated with that repair.

Your "between the lines" circuit appears to be working overtime.

I will see your initial misinterpretation (that the language only applies to
problems that existed prior to leaving home base), and raise you your new
misinterpretation: you are now claiming that this language specifically only
applies to situations where the problem actually got WORSE after you flew
the airplane?

Sheesh... that's about the most bizarrely, "constructive" interpretation of
a contract I've ever seen. You've managed to invent two new clauses where
there's no language in the contract whatsoever to suggest them.

As I said, the language in the rental agreement
is not the best in the world, but this is how that would be interpreted.

Obviously that's how it would be interpreted by at least one person.
However, there's no way it would be interpreted that way by anyone who
matters (that is, a renter, a lawyer, a judge, or a jury).

Pete