On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a > contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:45:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > David Johnson scripsit: > > > A menu at a restaurant clearly lays out the "terms" of the contract: a > > particular price in exchange for a particular item. The fact that you pay fo > > the item after you have used it does not make it very much different from any > > other commercial transaction. > > Not my point. The menu is a contract you're stuck with: your only recourse > is to go elsewhere if you don't like the terms. I'm not sure I under stand your point. In a restaurant, I go in and order something. > > Contrast this to the MS EULA. You think you are engaging in a typical > > commercial transaction. You pay your money and you get a shrinkwrap box. Then > > you go home, open it, and discover a piece of paper that says you have > > already agreed to terms you have never seen before. > > Typically the actual product (CD or whatever) is inaccessible without getting > past the contract. Caveat emptor. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, > at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. > --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- Chris Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
