On Sep 24, 1994 at 09:01, Rod Speed of 3:711/934.2 wrote:

 RS> If you dont have the mental horsepower to grasp that it isnt possible
 RS> to provide to you what I did not save at the time, thats essentially your
 RS> problem Dave.

Rod, it's not the lack of evidence being provided, but the attitude that if
it was possible to provide that evidence, you wouldn't provide it anyway.

 RS> Go and fuck yourself Dave.

Gee, Rod;  you sure have this phobia against reality, don't you..

 DB>> See?  It wasn't so difficult to just come out and say it after all. 
 RS> Pathetic Dave. Thats precisely what I did say when you bombastically
 RS> demanded proof initially.

Rubbish;  you said "It has already been tested, so there",
without any further information.  When I requested more, you complained
bitterly, but came ahead and told me anyway.

 DB>> when the discussion was originally centred (by situation) on the
 DB>> Australian jurisdiction.
 RS> Nope, it aint that simple.

OH YES IT IS;  ask any lawyer, foreign precedent in jurisdictions like the
U.K., U.S., N.Z. and Canada are merely "persuasive", but are in
no way binding.  If you can't fathom that, or aren't willing to do the
research required to realise this, then that's essentially your problem.

 RS> We were in fact talking about purported contracts inserted by US software
 RS> majors and whether they were binding on the users of the software.

Nope - we were talking *generally* in *Australia*;  there was no original
reference to U.S. companies, major *or* minor.  Paul (the Aust., or U.S.
one, I don't care) - do *you* recall any original reference to U.S.
software vendors?

 DB>> You have stated emphatically that shrinkwrap licences *have* been
 DB>> tested in a court of law - but only in the U.S.; to date, you haven't
 DB>> addressed the Australian scene.
 RS> You know as well as I do that the fundamentals of what purports to be a
 RS> contract situation is just a tad more complex than that Dave.

You're blind, Rod;  that paragraph doesn't address the fundamentals of
contract law - it's a statement that you're splashing in the wrong pool
(U.S. instead of Australia).

 RS> Never said it was, but there can indeed be situations where a foreign
 RS> decision on some stuff does in fact matter. You know that as well as I
 RS> do.

There is a world of difference between a foreign case being persuasive, and
that same case being referred to as a "test case" under the
Australian jurisdiction;  those two things are *not* the same.

 RS> You were in fact suggesting that the conditions were binding.

I was in fact saying that in some circumstances, yes the conditions *are*
binding;  this countered your, "They're never binding."

 RS> Nope. If a parking station has a sign up denying all responsibility for
 RS> the safety of your car while its in the parking station, even if you
 RS> cant miss that on entry to the parking station, still doesnt let the
 RS> owners off the hook.

Rod, I'm not saying all the clauses in the contract are enforceable -
merely that if they are available prior to the transaction taking place,
then there is an arguement that can be fought in court (that may or may not
be won, depending on the clause), which differs from an instance where the
conditions are introduced post-transaction, wherein the matter would
(should) be resolved fairly quickly;  THAT is the difference - the
*possibility* of enforcement, versus the *lack* thereof.  Never once have I
said it has been "cut and dried" or "that simple"; 
these are concepts which plague *your* arguements.


    - dave
    david{at}cagney.nepean.uws.edu.au

---