Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 03:26:49 GMT From: Rob Stampfli Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion Message-ID: Organization: Little to None Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 420, Message 2 of 10 Lines: 33 > [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement > you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as > payment for your having given permission to change your phones. When > you withheld your permission, you had no right to the money. And > please, no one needs to reply saying 'you have the right to keep > things of value which arrive in the mail unsolicited'. This was not > 'something of value'. It was a contract they were requesting you to > sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so. Big difference. PAT] Pat, Put the shoe on the other foot: Suppose I wrote on the back of a check to MCI, in payment of a regular monthly bill: "By depositing this check, MCI agrees, for the value received, to provide the issuer of said check with phone service for the rest of his natural life, with no additional charges to be incurred." Are you really saying that if MCI should happen to not catch this and cashes the check, that they have entered into this contract? And if they do catch it, cross out the verbage and deposit the check anyway, are they guilty of some heinous crime? Then, what makes you or I different from MCI? I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. I have tried very diligently to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer, incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far from a clearly defined point of contract law. I may morally agree with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in a court of law. Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh