Posted by Harlan Messinger on 09/11/06 15:22

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <4mijcsF6c4otU1@individual.net>, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> writes
>
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> Adam Smith <adamsmith@econ.com> scripsit:
>>>
>>>> Many program & sites package their EULA's in neat dialog boxes, w/ I
>>>> Agree, Do Not Agree Radio buttons. Could someone say how this is done?
>>> There's nothing neat in such dialog boxes. They exist just to please
>>> lawyers that imagine that the dialogs have a legal meaning and work
>>> with such issues since they cannot find neither a more profitable nor
>>> a more decent job.
>> What makes you think they don't have a legal meaning
>
> Rather than asking Jukka to prove a negative, why don't you tell us what
> makes you think that they do?

A click-through agreement possesses all the elements that, in the US at
least, constitute a valid contract, and to anyone familiar with
contracts this much is obvious. If you're interested, see

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c123.htm

and in particular the part about parol contracts.

It's Jukka making the claim that something that is obviously a contract
isn't legally binding. Of course, the whole matter is muddied because
Jukka may be talking about Finland or the EU, and I don't know the law
there.

[Back to original message]