In "Disclosed to Death" (June 7, p. 20) law professors Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E. Schneider's advocacy of cutting through disclosures' underbrush by creating default laws is ill conceived. The purpose of disclosures is to provide notice of consequences upon execution by the consumer. Relying on default laws and the option to opt out assumes all consumers are well educated in the field of law. The misguided example using the law of intestacy fails to mention that many people hire attorneys to write wills. Are consumers supposed to hire an attorney to review everything, no matter how small?
展开▼
机译：在“向死亡公开”（6月7日，第20页）中，法律教授奥姆里·本·沙哈尔（Omri Ben-Shahar）和卡尔·施耐德（Carl E. Schneider）提倡通过建立默认法律来消除披露的负担是不正确的。公开的目的是在消费者执行后提供后果通知。依靠违约法律和选择退出的假设假定所有消费者在法律领域都受过良好的教育。使用无遗嘱法的错误例子并未提及许多人聘请律师来撰写遗嘱。消费者是否应该聘请律师来审查所有事情，无论大小如何？
展开▼
