Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!dvinci!news
From: reid@skorpio.Usask.ca (Irving Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: licensing agreements
Message-ID: <1989Dec31.194659.15587@dvinci.usask.ca>
Date: 31 Dec 89 19:46:59 GMT
References: <14956@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <9338@hoptoad.uucp> <9430@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1989Dec26.212420.19786@dvinci.usask.ca> <1989Dec27.180649.16935@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: reid@skorpio.UUCP (Irving Reid)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Lines: 20

In article <1989Dec27.180649.16935@agate.berkeley.edu> silverio@brahms.berkeley.edu.UUCP (C J Silverio) writes:
:Irving Reid likes Think C's license:  [I do, I do!]
:  Check out the "limited warranty" on Think C 4.0.  In an age where most
:  software is sold "as is", they warrant that their software will
:  operate "substantially as documented"...
:
:I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net, but I once used the
:"warrantee of implied merchantability" -- that a given product will
:perform "substantially as advertised/documented" -- to get my money
:back for a database program that, well, substantially DIDN'T.

Unfortunately the situation is different in Canada.  According to the
lawyer I'm working for right now, items purchased for _individual_ use
in Canada are covered by consumer protection law, and warrantee
disclaimers can be invalidated in court.  However, if items are
purchased for use by companies no holds are barred.  The justification
is that corporate buyers and sellers are assumed to have equal
bargaining power, and therefore they don't need the extra protection.

 - irving - (reid@abraham.usask.ca)