Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3D78DCBD.8040105@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <email@example.com> <3D79F56B.E095CBB1@webaccess.net> <5p$qdqAEije9EwId@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Publishing engineering techniques?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 20:34:14 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 20:34:45 BST
"John Woodgate" wrote in message
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Chuck Simmons
> wrote (in <3D79F56B.E095CBB1@webaccess.net>)
> about 'Publishing engineering techniques?', on Sat, 7 Sep 2002:
> >Apparently not. All sorts of contracts have no exchange of tangible
> >value. NDA's and other performance agreements not involving money
> >to mind.
> An *agreement* doesn't need a consideration; a *contract* does. Only a
> lawyer can explain the difference.(;-)
Ammm... A *proper* agreement *is* a contract. What on earth do you
propose an agreement means if not a contract? An agreement that is not a
contract is a nothing.
All this stuff about only a lawyer can explain legal stuff is stuff
perpetuated by lawyers, for obvious reasons. For the most part, simple
reading a few law books is enough to get the main features. Sure, there
can be some subtle technicalities, but overall its pretty much logical.
For example, a contract to perform an illegal act is unenforceable, as
is a contract against public policy, or statute. Of note in English Law
is the unfair contracts term act 1977. This act actually demolishes a
few typical clauses in u.s take it or leave it c9ntracts. Basically it
protects consumers from arbitrary exclusion clauses. In fact, some of
the US ones are dicey indeed. It is actually a criminal offence to imply
that your consumer goods and services rights are being waived. i.e.
fitness for purpose etc.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.