Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Thread beginning with comment 339056
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 14:42
in reply to "RE[3]: Um, reaching a bit?"
It is indeed "illegal" to violate even a private contract
The terms "legal" and "illegal" are most commonly used with criminal law, not civil law. It's a bit of a split hair though. It is, however, not a crime to violate a contract.
as the law specifically dictates that we abide by the contracts we enter in to.
It also dictates what can go into a contract and what constitutes valid (or legal, if you wish) contract clauses.
It's not "illegal" to violate an "illegal" contract.
RE[5]: Um, reaching a bit?
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 16:21
in reply to "RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?"
"It also dictates what can go into a contract and what constitutes valid (or legal, if you wish) contract clauses.
It's not "illegal" to violate an "illegal" contract."
Finally, someone who has a clue.
That is exactly what this case will determine, the validity and legality of Apple's EULA.
RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:51
in reply to "RE[3]: Um, reaching a bit?"





Member since:
2006-03-18
"The term "illegal" describes something that violates a law."
So, breach of contract has no legal repercussions? It is indeed "illegal" to violate even a private contract, as the law specifically dictates that we abide by the contracts we enter in to.