Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news
From: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOFTWARE
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.190847.4420@convex.com>
Date: 14 Feb 91 19:08:47 GMT
References: <3929@orbit.cts.com> <38899@cup.portal.com> <70629@microsoft.UUCP> <2945@cirrusl.UUCP> <70649@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@convex.com (news access account)
Reply-To: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: mozart.convex.com

In article <70649@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes:
>It's not the act of reading that makes it enforceable, it's the opening of
>the envelope. The agreement says:
>
>"If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, promptly return the
>unopened disk package and the accompanying items (including written material
>and binders or other containers) to the place you obtained them for a full
>refund."
>
>If both parties do not agree with the terms, then there is no agreement and
>the transaction, i.e., the purchase, must be undone.

I think we have a circular argument here.  If I hold the agreement to be
invalid, why would/should I hold this particular clause to be valid?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Dodson		                             dodson@convex.COM
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      (214) 497-4234