1. Given the language of the time frame notice, do you agree with the court’s statements that it was clear and objectively reasonable consumers would not be confused by it? Why or why not?
2. This is a notice that is similar to the notice Palmer received. Does that affect your analysis?

In March 2003, Palmer obtained a home equity loan from Champion and received copies of her signed TILA disclosures and the “notice of her right to cancel” disclosure. This notice provided that Palmer could “cancel the transaction for any reason within three business days of (1) the date of the transaction, (2) the date she received her TILA disclosures, or (3) the date she received the notice of the right to cancel,” and that if she was to cancel the transaction by mail or telegraph, the cancellation had to be post marked no later than April 1, 2003. In August 2004 Palmer filed for cancellation of the transaction under the extended three-year statute of limitations under the TILA, claiming that Champion failed to make TILA disclosures because the time frames in the cancellation were too confusing.