Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 20:05:55 GMT From: Stuart Lynne Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Message-ID: Organization: Wimsey Associates 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 480, Message 1 of 11 Lines: 43 In article drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > Kurt Guntheroth writes: > Contract, hell it is extortion. As any first year law student > could tell you the following must exist to be a contract: > o legality of object # OK > o mutual consideration # OK > o contractual capacity # OK; minors create > # a voidable contract > o manifestion of consent > (offer/acceptance) # NO > o meeting of the minds > > The hacker is not aware of the offer (tariff), there is no > manifestion of consent, and there is not meeting of the minds. > Another point, California has the Uniform Commercial Code, thus the > statue of frauds would apply. This means the contract (including > acceptance) must be in writing for amount of over $500.00. I wonder to what extent their status as a common carrier affects the normal course of forming a contract with them. All of the above would be pretty standard stuff between any two random non regulated parties, but to what extent is it altered by statute (in this case the statutes granting Thrifty common carrier status). Presumably their are both new requirements (to entering into a contract) and new restrictions (for example only tariffs filed with regulating body can be charged). Stuart Lynne Computer Signal Corporation, Canada ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca [Moderator's Note: In addition to ThriftyTel, I have to wonder how 'contracts' and the Uniform Commercial Code apply to 900 calls in general where minors are concerned. PAT]