cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-10 - Re: Responses to “Spam costs and questions” (long)

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 376b5c540beb8c7ad5ea0404888dad38b11d5ca6f57c9cd2765a90112df1d189
Message ID: <19970609234548.51666@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <19970608071045.57576@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-10 07:03:23 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:03:23 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:03:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
In-Reply-To: <19970608071045.57576@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <19970609234548.51666@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 11:46:54AM -0500, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
[.interesting historical references deleted.]
> > their very nature involve "enforcement".  What you say in a contract
> > binds you.  What you say outside of a contract does not.  What you say
> > in a contract is, therefore, and by definition, not "free".
> 
> When a tobacco company says in an ad, "Joe Camel is cool", what kind
> of contractual obligations does it assume?

None.  I did not say that all ads were part of a contract.

> Have you ever bought a used car, Kent?  Have you seen the language in
> the contract that throws out whatever promises the saleguy made that
> are not a part of the contract? 

Yes, but never from a used-car lot, always from people I know.  I have
bought a new car -- I don't recall the details of the contract, but it
seems quite probable that such a clause would exist. 

> If I claim on Usenet that borshch
> cures cancer, who are the counterparties, and what consideration do
> I get?

No one.  None.

I didn't say that all ads were contracts.  It seems to me, though,
that there is no clear dividing line possible between advertising and
verbal contracts, and that the clause you mention in the used car 
case is indirect evidence in support of this -- car companies 
consider it prudent, after all, to get you to sign something that 
relinquishes your right to hold a salesman to what he says.

I believe the ambiguity between ad and verbal contract is unavoidable
in principle.  Can you suggest any simple clear rule that works?
"Caveat emptor" won't do it -- one of the primary purposes of
contracts is to give redress in the case of non-performance, which is
directly contrary to caveat emptor. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Thread