On Nov 15, 2007 4:52 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Arguing that you have not read the contract does not absolve you of its terms.
Really? That seems strange. A contract requires a [[meeting of the minds]]. How can you have a meeting of the minds if one of the parties doesn't even know what she's agreed to?
You don't have to read every word, but surely one must understand the basic concept of what she's agreeing to in order to have a valid contract. Isn't that why so many contracts make you initial individual key paragraphs?
With many licences simply availing oneself of their benefits includes an implicit agreement with the terms of the licence. This can be the case with shrinkwraped licences where if you break the seal, you agree to the licence.
AFAIK that POV has never held up in court. AFAIK the only time something remotely close has held up was when a purchase was made directly from the manufacturer, and no seal was ever broken. The theory was that the contract was formed *at the time of sale*, and not at the time the software was taken out of any shrinkwrap.
Whenever I get software with a shrinkwrapped license I always cut the back of the envelope and leave the seal intact. Does this mean I'm less bound by the contract than someone who "breaks the seal"?
I'm afraid you're going to need another citation for this claim about shrinkwrapped licenses. "The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear." [[Shrink wrap contract]] doesn't mention anything about non-US jurisdictions.