Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
From: seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: a new topic, perhaps ...
Message-ID: <1326@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Aug-84 08:20:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.1326
Posted: Fri Aug 31 08:20:19 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 12:41:09 EDT
References: <35@tekchips.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 19

> My "People's Court" understanding of the law is that if someone sends you
> a letter (particularly if it's certified) stating a legal position (e.g.,
> that you are violating their rights, owe them something, etc.), the fact
> that you receive it and do not respond can be interpreted by the court as
> having implicitly agreed to its interpretation.

This had certainly better be wrong.   All I would have to do is to
flood people's mailboxes with claims that they owed me money and
if they didn't happen to have time to respond to them all I could
then haul them into court and collect?  No thanks!

-- 
	_____
       /_____\		9 out of 10 dentists recommend oral sex
      /_______\
	|___|			    Snoopy
    ____|___|_____	       ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert

(must be true, I saw it on the tee-shirt of a dentist!)