On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 11:46:54AM -0500, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes: [.interesting historical references deleted.]
their very nature involve "enforcement". What you say in a contract binds you. What you say outside of a contract does not. What you say in a contract is, therefore, and by definition, not "free".
When a tobacco company says in an ad, "Joe Camel is cool", what kind of contractual obligations does it assume?
None. I did not say that all ads were part of a contract.
Have you ever bought a used car, Kent? Have you seen the language in the contract that throws out whatever promises the saleguy made that are not a part of the contract?
Yes, but never from a used-car lot, always from people I know. I have bought a new car -- I don't recall the details of the contract, but it seems quite probable that such a clause would exist.
If I claim on Usenet that borshch cures cancer, who are the counterparties, and what consideration do I get?
No one. None. I didn't say that all ads were contracts. It seems to me, though, that there is no clear dividing line possible between advertising and verbal contracts, and that the clause you mention in the used car case is indirect evidence in support of this -- car companies consider it prudent, after all, to get you to sign something that relinquishes your right to hold a salesman to what he says. I believe the ambiguity between ad and verbal contract is unavoidable in principle. Can you suggest any simple clear rule that works? "Caveat emptor" won't do it -- one of the primary purposes of contracts is to give redress in the case of non-performance, which is directly contrary to caveat emptor. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html