Now IANAL and so I have to ask those who know; how serious is this? It strikes me that this is a decision whose sole purpose is to create work for lawyers. It seems to be saying that a buyer must be held responsible for mistakes made by the seller and that a seller can at any time after the sale can say "Sorry, I made a mistake..."
If there is a legal principle of Caveat Emptor shouldn't the seller also beware of what is being sold?
Slashdot Mirror
using my own legs like a sucker! Homer Simpson
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2135909,0 0.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage
Now IANAL and so I have to ask those who know; how serious is this? It strikes me that this is a decision whose sole purpose is to create work for lawyers. It seems to be saying that a buyer must be held responsible for mistakes made by the seller and that a seller can at any time after the sale can say "Sorry, I made a mistake..."
If there is a legal principle of Caveat Emptor shouldn't the seller also beware of what is being sold?
MZ
Shouldn't one or both of those ce capitalized? MZ