In the case of Griggs et al. v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a debtor's right to rescind a loan agreement under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is not automatically waived if they fail to file a lawsuit within three years from when their right of rescission arose. The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Griggs, had entered into a mortgage refinancing agreement with Provident Consumer Discount Company but later sought to rescind this contract claiming violations of TILA by Provident. However, they did not file suit until after three years had passed since closing on their loan - beyond TILA’s statute of limitations for filing lawsuits seeking damages for disclosure errors in credit transactions. Despite this delay, the court held that as long as notice was given within three years (which it was), then there was no time limit on when borrowers could sue lenders over alleged failures to honor validly exercised rights of rescission.

In the dissenting opinion for Griggs et al. v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow consumers to sue creditors who violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) without showing actual damages was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent. He believed that Congress intended TILA to be enforced by administrative agencies and not through private lawsuits, except where consumers could demonstrate they had suffered some form of harm or prejudice as a result of violations. The majority’s interpretation, he contended, would lead to an excessive number of trivial lawsuits which would burden courts and potentially drive up costs for all borrowers due to increased litigation risk for lenders.