Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3DE526FA.7010908@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Who owns your mind?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1038571689 22407 220.127.116.11 (29 Nov 2002 12:08:09 GMT)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:08:05 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:08:10 GMT
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson T@analog_innovations.com> wrote (in
> ) about 'Who owns your
> mind?', on Thu, 28 Nov 2002:
>> You should get a new attorney. There's lots of case law saying it's
>> an illegal contract.
> This is the lawyer hair-splitting. The *contract* isn't illegal,
> *enforcing* it is (in the appropriate jurisdictions). Some types of
> contract are conspiracies, and a conspiracy is *always* illegal.
I still think that the word "illegal" is not really accurate. The
contact would be either void, voidable, or unenforceable. Only if
"enforcement" meant two rather large gentleman "leaning" a bit would it
be illegal. "illegal" is usually reserved for criminal aspects,
contracts are usually a civil matter. However ther are exceptions, for
example, in the UK, to claim/imply that a disclaimer in a consumer
purchase eliminates your consumer rights under the sale of goods act, is
a *criminal* offence. It is *why* every disclaimer in the UK has "your
statutory rights are not effected" added.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.