Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit: > You mean "Specht et al v Netscape".
Yes. I forgot which name came first. > In that decision, there > is a footnote [8] on page 10 which states, (in part) > The apparent failure of consideration on Plaintiff's side -- > put simply, Plaintiff's obtaining SmartDownload without giving > anything in return -- might support a finding that no contract > exists. However, because I rely on other grounds to find that > the parties did not enter into a contract, see infra, I need not > decide this issue. That is to say: the contract *might* have been void for lack of consideration, but *was* void for lack of acceptance, so the first question need not be considered. > I am not an expert. Can you provide a reference to a decision > where the outcome hinged on deciding there was consideration > for a gratis transfer? No. Almost anything can be consideration, though, which is why I said it is very nearly a matter of form. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
