Now, one of the case law points that I think is interesting is a case that was about Home Direct. With Home Direct what they did was they set up a standard contract, which would be covered by this bill, and the standard contract had in it that people who bought the goods at the door would actually sign up to pay for the goods over quite a long period of time. When they'd finished paying in full for the goods, which were at an inflated price, the contract had in it a point which meant that they actually continued to pay. They paid and that money went straight to Home Direct. In exchange for that, they got vouchers. So if they did not use their vouchers to buy goods from Home Direct within 12 months that was forfeited. That cost people in this country $600,000-plus in one year, and that was just for the vouchers that were forfeited, not for the people who spent their vouchers. That is an unconscionable kind of agreement. It's actually something that's well defined in this Act.