Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50877)	6/13/2002 5:14:34 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I guess I will leave it to the lawyers to comment on that, if they choose to.......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50877)	6/13/2002 5:20:06 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Courts also ask whether it was reasonable for one party to understand that the other party intended to legally bind himself in contract: "Even though one requests certain actions or services by another, no contract will necessarily be created if the latter should reasonably understand from the circumstances that the party making the request has no intention to contract and is therefore justified in assuming that no legally enforceable obligations are involved." That is one place the "reasonable-ness" standard does come into play in contract law, and it applies here. Was it reasonable for you under the circumstances to understand that Laz was binding himself to let you stay on SMBR forever (or until you violated the to-or-about restriction)? You yourself answered that question with a "no" at the time. Easy case. The quote BTW is not from some fly by night legal Web site. It's from Williston on Contracts, Section 3.5, 4th Edition.