Posted by Harlan Messinger on 09/12/06 14:15

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> But if it's not delivered through HTTPS, then it could be tampered with
> en-route to the visitor, so you can never quite be sure whether it was
> *your* contract they agreed to, or some man-in-the-middle's contract.

I suspect an assertion that tampering had occurred would be required,
along with evidence that it had happened. I wouldn't think it would be
the starting assumption. After all, printed contracts can be tampered
with, and, in the US at least, even oral contracts can often be
enforced. A business issuing a EULA has a better chance of proving that
it presented that EULA to the user, and of proving what the EULA said,
than someone bringing an oral contract into court.

[Back to original message]