From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 17:18:46 PST
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Subject: Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951202032514.18919C-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951203201237.6206F-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Jonathan Zamick wrote:
> 
> > I disagree.  Almost nobody read the fine print on the back of a note you 
> > sign when you buy a car or otherwise take out a loan, but the provisions 
> > are generally enforceable ...  Ignorance is not necessarily an excuse.
> 
> Actually, I was under the impression that adherance contracts like that 

You are correct in saying that onerous provisions of adhesion contracts 
are sometimes not enforced against the party who did not draft the 
contract (the one who had it "forced" upon them).  Again, very fact 
specific.  And that has been my point all along.

As an aside, understand that my comments on this thread relate to my 
semi-educated prediction of how the law will be applied in this context.  
It does not reflect what the law would be if I were King of the forest.


> (the most oft touted example is the ski lift ticket with four paragraphs 
> on the back) are often tossed out when it has to do with liability on 
> that order.  The reason loan agreements are not often thrown out is 
> because courts find an increased expectation that the consumer would be 
> paying attention to the back of loan documents than the back of a ski 
> lift ticket.  I think it will be unlikely that warnings on the box of a 
> given piece of software will suffice.  Large banners in the program 
> itself may meet the threshold.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely.

> If there is enough interest, I will research the threshold issue.
> 
EBD