I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
Reading the contract, a student will think that they can't discharge the debt through bankruptcy. In reality, yes, they can discharge the debt through bankruptcy. It's right there in the order:
"The Bankruptcy Non-Dischargeability Provision is misleading because, contrary to the Dischargeability Provision, the Contract is not a “qualified educational loan,” as defined in section 221, subdivision (d)(1), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the limitations on dischargeability pursuant to section 523, subdivision (a)(8), of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
A 'mess up' would be misuse of an Oxford comma. You don't 'mess up' dropping a very specific reference to a very specific legal code that does not apply.
> Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.
The order cites their deceptive marketing. Presumably that's why they were ordered to review all of their previous marketing.
> The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into?
I copied and pasted directly from the order.
> You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.
I copied and pasted from his own post.
Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
