Gabriel and Selene, during a winter vacation in Alberta, decided to ski on a famous location in the Rocky Mountains. They rented ski equipment at a local ski shop and provided several information including their height, weight, ski experience. They were also instructed on how the mechanism that attaches the ski bindings to the boots needed to be adjusted. (Safety requires that skis be released from the boots in the event of a hard fall.). Before checking out, they signed a waiver which released the ski shop from liability by expressly stating that: 1. The renters would hold harmless the ski shop from any claims for personal injury or property damage related to the use of that equipment 2. The renters were aware that there are inherent risks involved in the sport for which this equipment was used 3. The renters understood that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence of snow skiing, and freely assume those risks. 4. The renters understood that the ski-boot-binding system would not release at all times or under all circumstances, nor is it possible to predict every situation in which it will release and is therefore no guarantee for my safety. After a couple of hours skiing Gabriel fell and injured his knee. The ski on one leg released from her boot and the other one did not. The couple sued the ski shop for negligence, alleging incompetence in the adjustment of her equipment. Although they admitted that they had signed the waiver, they claimed that the waiver was unreasonably unfair. - What are the legal principles that can be applied to this case? - If you were the judges in a Court case, what decision would you make to resolve the issue?