Slashdot Mirror

Weirum vs RKO is very different in that there was a definite prize involved and the contest was basically a race. The prize was specifically for being at a designated place first. That makes it a race. It is perfectly reasonable that people would drive illegally during a race. This is the same reason Dominos no longer does the 30 minutes or less delivery. When you turn somthing into a race it is perfectly reasonable that people will do stupid things.

In the Snapchat case it is not reasonable that displaying information would make someone want to max it. There was also no prize involved. Should they also remove the temperature filter as it may induce people to freeze to death or die of head stroke?

"Interstate commerce clearly indicates any and all actual commercial transactions which actually involve parties in different states."

Unfortunately that is not the case. There have been cases where the Supreme Court, in the most blatantly disgusting way, has held that the interstate commerce clause applied.

"The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.

Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (D) assessed a penalty against him. Filburn refused to pay, contending that the Act sought to limit local commercial activity and therefore was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause." http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wi...

Except Mr. Filburn would tell you that, much to his chagrin, that the reverse of your proposition has been settled law for the past 70 years...

And sadly you remain buried at 2 while the incorrect "a judge will void a EULA" floats to the top at 5.

Dear anti-EULA crowd, IAAL, EULAs and click-wraps are enforceable. Go look up Pro-CD, go look up Hill v. Gateway for proof. I have yet to see the support for the "EULAs are not enforceable" that is always posted to slashdot and always modded as informative. Show me an appellate case that says otherwise and I'll change my tune.

Till then, don't get your legal advice from slashdot.

Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and .net technologies.

This is the answer I've wanted from Miguel ever since the Novell brouhaha.

Promissory estoppel serves as a "consideration substitute" in contract law that renders certain promises otherwise lacking in consideration binding and enforceable. In such cases, the promisee's reliance is treated as an independent and sufficient basis for enforcing the promise. Promissory estoppel can be viewed as a legal device that prohibits the promissor from denying the existence of a contract for lack of consideration.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/promissory-estoppel.html

I thought that a EULA could not be legally binding? Last I knew it wasn't a legal agreement, although it does give them ammunition in court...

Can someone please point me to the source of this repeated misinformation?? Every time a EULA is mentioned on slashdot, someone says "I thought EULAs aren't enforceable." Where are you getting this from?? Let me be clear:

EULAs ARE ENFORCEABLE.* See the ProCD case and Hill v. Gateway.

And yes, IAAL.

* provisions of a EULA MAY be ruled unconscionable by a court, but you are going into the battle losing.

I believe that EULAs are considered part of the contract that was the original purchase, which itself was a contract (a legally enforceable promise to deliver goods in exchange for payment or promise of payment.) The consideration (aka bargained-for-exchange) present in the original purchase is sufficient.

If I got the question right on my contracts final, shrink-wrap & click-through EULAs are at this point generally held to be enforceable if they provide a reasonable time for rejection (by returning the merchandise.) This gives a consumer the option to agree by keeping it or reject the terms by returning it (see Hill v. Gateway 2000. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hill-gateway.html.) So instead of signing to indicate their agreement, a customer indicates acceptance of the terms by performance (not returning it.)

Not all contracts must be written, not all written contracts must be signed, and not all written contracts even require consideration.