Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!mcnc!decvax!ima!cfisun!lakart!fgz
From: fgz@lakart.UUCP (Federico Genoese-Zerbi)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Is the GNU license enforceable?
Message-ID: <643@lakart.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 89 19:09:20 GMT
References: <795@cirrusl.UUCP>
Organization: Lakart Corporation, Newton, MA
Lines: 44

From article <795@cirrusl.UUCP>, by paul@sun600.UUCP (Paul E. Black):
> In article <10031@fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes:
>>....  You can make a contract with any terms imaginable, no matter how
>>one-sided or egregious, as long as it follows the basic legal format for a
>>contract (...) and does not contract for something illegal (...).
> 
> I have no legal training, however I understood that courts "commonly"
> void contracts which are too one-sided on the grounds that the party

This is not quite the whole story.  In general (your jurisdiction may vary),
a contract if FORMED, if you have the following:
1.  Offer.
2.  Acceptance supported by valid consideration.

There are many requirements on the form of the offer, the form of the
acceptance, but disregarding those, the contract MUST be supported by
consideration.  Consideration is a bargained for exchange.  That means
that if you offer to do something for nothing, I accept, that is still
not an enforceable contract.  On the other hand, IN GENERAL, courts will
not enquire into the sufficiency of consideration.  You are allowed
to make as good a deal or as bad a deal as you can.  It is
sometimes said that "a mere peppercorn will do" and in fact some people
exchange things for a penny if they want a gift to have the force of
contract.  This is in general.

There are of course exceptions.  Among them, courts will amend or refuse to 
enforce contracts where overreaching or unfair barganing tactics were used.  
This means that, yeah, there was consideration, but the court finds the terms
to outrageous (perhaps because one party had a much better barganing
position), that it would be unjust to enforce the contract (this is
something of an oversimplification, but you get the idea).  In general,
courts have to find something pretty egregious to not enforce a contract
for overreaching or some other similar theory.  If I were a lawyer, I'd
want to represent the guy attempting enforcment every time.

Disclaimer:  I am not an attorney.  The above is an oversimplification.
There are many other requirements for contract formation, enforcment and
policing the bargain than anybody here is interested in or I have time
(or the credentials) to write.

Enjoy.

Federico Genoese-Zerbi		
{mirror, xait, cfisun}!lakart!fgz