Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352391
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

Inasmuch as your comment was painful to read (must you bold every other word), you have a very warped view of contracts.

The reason EULAs have been challenged in the past is because the terms were considered additional terms, whose notice came after the contract was formed. In the SoftMan case, they had no notice of the terms, therefore no contract is formed.

They had not been challenged on the count of the impossibility of knowing acceptance - i.e. the very purpose of a signature.

Contracts never required signatures - offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to enter a legal relationship is all that is needed for a contract. For example, bidding at a auction house - there is a contract when you bid for something and win (multiple, sequential contracts in fact). You *do not* need to sign a contract for it to be valid. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, for example, there was *NO SIGNATURE* - Carbolic has an open-ended offer to the world, and there wasn't a need to signify acceptance by notice (or signature on that notice, for that matter). See UCC Sec. 2-207(1) - informal acceptance is still acceptance, even without a signature.

So when is signature necessary? In proving there is acceptance to a contract. If X tells Y he wants 50 widgets, Y says "Yeah, sure" - there is offer and acceptance. But when Y builds and delivers the 50 widgets, X says, "What? When did I order widgets?". The lack of a written contract in this case works against Y. It is not that X and Y didn't have a contract, Y just can't prove the contract exists and the terms are as originally agreed.

In the case of Psystar, it is clear they have seen the EULA - if not at installation, the many statements on their website indicates that they very well know of the terms of the EULA. Whether the EULA is enforceable is a different matter altogether (one that judges disagree themselve), but quite certainly the lack of signatures *isn't*

Reply Parent Score: 1