|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 09/12/06 18:33
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> scripsit:
>
>>> Don't be ridiculous. If I put a note (in fine print, for example) on
>>> my page, saying that by reading my page you commit to giving me
>>> everything you own, that would constitute a contract between us, if
>>> your approach were correct.
>>
>> If I asked someone for the time of day, and he handed me a printed
>> form reading "In return for the time of day from X I agree to pay him
>> one million dollars", my response would be not to sign it. If I read
>> something like that on a web page with a link, my response would be
>> not to click it.
>
> I didn't write anything about links in the part quoted above.
>
> By reading this message, you commit yourself to giving me everything you
> own.
>
> Now, will you follow your own logic and send me your money, please?
Your simulation here isn't binding for reasons that have nothing to do
with it being on-line. It isn't binding because it isn't even a
contract, and it isn't a contract because it's missing at least one of
the essential ingredients of a contract: an agreement to do something,
or not do something, in exchange for the consideration of everything I
own. Everything on Usenet is publicly viewable by everybody, so
permission to view your words on Usenet is not yours to give or withhold.
I assumed when you made your pronouncement about agreement dialogs
having no legal meaning that you would have some background knowledge
about what determines whether agreements to or don't carry legal weight,
or else you wouldn't make such a flat assertion.
Since it doesn't have the form of a contract, your illustration gives no
insight into the binding nature of agreements, on-line or on paper or
oral, that do possess the essential elements of a contract.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|