Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!yale!spolsky-joel From: spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Shareware liscenses Message-ID: <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Date: 25 Mar 89 17:24:14 GMT References: <2214@hoqax.UUCP> Sender: root@yale.UUCP Reply-To: spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Lines: 31 In article <2214@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: > >The discussion of shareware liscense agreements seems to assume that people >actually read the request for payment frequently buried in a file somewhere. >I don't see how these requests can be considered legally binding since there >is no way to insure that a person has even seen them. > Absolutely false. Just because you didn't read the request to pay doesn't mean you don't _have_ to pay. If you go into a barber shop and sit down, and get your hair cut, you can't complain that you "never read" the sign with the prices posted, you are certainly obligated to pay. "In the absence of a contrary statute, acceptance of goods or services by a person who did not request them is an expression of assent to contract if that person knew or reasonably should have known that the goods or services were offered with the expectation of compensation". (Chem-Teonix Laboratories, Inc., v. Solocast Company, 5 Conn. Cir. 533, 258 A.2d 110 (1968)). I wish people would stop thinking that it was _legal_ to use shareware without paying, because it certainly isn't. The law might not be enforced, but that is a different issue. +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1483 | +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ #include