| gabriel rosenkoetter on 21 Nov 2003 19:55:03 -0500 |
|
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 06:02:30PM -0500, Paul wrote: > The employee isn't required to sign the letter, but cashing the > check is taken as agreement with the terms. Can those terms be > legally enforced? The employee needs to consult a real lawyer about this, not a Linux users group. All we can possibly have (barring the statistically probable one or two people subscribed who've actually taken the bar exam) is opinions, which don't mean much in court. On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Tobias DiPasquale wrote: > IANAL, but I believe that if he didn't sign anything, he doesn't agree > to the terms. Shrink-wrap licenses are similarly unenforceable. You don't have to sign something to enter into a contract, necessarily. So far as I know, verbal contracts *have* been found to be binding (that's utter speculation and may be entirely dependent on state and local law!). The description given sounds more like a verbal contract to me than it does like a shrinkwrap license. Incidentally, do you have a reference to case law in which a shrinkwrap license was found to be unenforcable? I agree that it shouldn't be, but I don't know of any solid precedent on them. (Based on the fact that people actually got money back from Microsoft by rejecting their shrinkwrap license, I'd say that there's precedent the other way: Microsoft was bound by the shrinkwrap license.) Paul, it may well not be worth the $1000 to find out, much less to actually take the matter to court. (For either party, really.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpzCiYWL3CXk.pgp
|
|