Posted by Stephen Poley on 09/11/06 18:16

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:22:38 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote:

>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.
....
>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.

I went to a seminar on the law relating to software in the Netherlands a
few years ago. The speaker on this matter said it had not been tested
before the courts, and it was uncertain whether a click-through
agreement would stand up in the Netherlands. Apparently legal opinion
was divided but he was inclined to think it would not.

He further added that at least some clauses of some click-through
contracts he had seen would definitely not stand up in the Netherlands.

I don't know whether things have changed since.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Back to original message]