>
> --- "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm through with this discussion, except to say that you really do need
to
> > read posts before commenting on them. First, I NEVER made the blanket
> > statement that machines can't bind somebody to a contract. I did say,
> > however, that it is NOT enough to show the machine's action. One must
also
> > show additional elements. Such as intent. It is clear that, when one
puts
> > money in a machine, they are showing an intent to purchase. And the
machine
> > has writing that offers cans for a certain amount. But if the machine
> > screws up, and spews out a whole lot of cans, guess what? If the person
> > takes them all without paying for them, he is STEALING! Get it yet? I
> > doubt it.
>
> Even after *three* attempts to make it clear that the point of the vending
> machine example is to focus on the **VENDOR'S** intent, embodied in the
> configuration of the machine, you still focus on the client instead of the
> server. The point is that the candy buyer is analogous to the web client
and
> the machine's vendor is analogous to the web author. The only difference
is
> that sale of a good requires consideration, whereas a copyright licence
does
> not. If the posted price is "free", your argument actually proves my
point.
First, "free" cannot be enforced. No consideration. Second, you ignore my response. I said that if the machine screwed up, and spewed out too many sodas, the buyer could be liable for theft if they kept the "free" ones, or at least liable for unjust enrichment. Thus, the machine's actions are NOT attributed to the vendor and the vendor is NOT bound by the action. The ATM example is on point too. The fact that a machine screws up is NOT an excuse to keep excess money. There is NO contract, and the vendor is NOT bound by his machine's actions. Get it yet? I answered your question numerous times.
-Bodi Received on Wed Aug 27 2003 - 23:43:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT