From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 13:30:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.011137.5510@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>Likewise, the network stands ready to accept anyone's post and
>>distribute it far and wide (the offer) 
>
>"the network" is not a legal entity and therefore cannot extend an offer
>to enter into a contract.

The only thing here is that the "network" has never been defined in
a court of law.  To say the network is not a legal entity is the same
as saying it doesn't exist.  The network is the combination of many
sites and communications paths.  By convention, design, chance,
precedent, etc. the network exists and it remains to be seen what a
court would ultimately view as a legal definition (description) of
the network.  The various owners of the individual component pieces
of the network certainly are legal entities and their creation of
the network results (IMHO) in a larger legal entity, even if that
larger entity exists more by default than design.

>>with no limitations being
>>placed on the distribution.
>
>Limitation are regularly placed on postings by each receiving site. Some
>sites even ignore your pre-defined Distribution lines.

Accepting your statement fully, then perhaps I would have been a bit
more accurate in saying....with no limitations placed on distribution
and with no guarantee that a post will be delivered and/or accepted
by every site.  

We could probably spend several days working out the "exact" details
of what the network "offers" to the poster in terms of where and how
any post may end up, but that doesn't alter the fact that the "network"
offers a distribution process to a poster with no ability for the 
poster to LIMIT where that post goes (sites, CD-ROM, pay to read, etc.)

>>A poster, posts an article (the 
>>acceptance).  The network accepts the post (the poster's consideration)
>>and the network distributes it (the networks consideration).
>
>A computer accepts my posting and my computer cannot enter into a legal
>contract with another party.

The computer (ie. the network) was created by people and the creation of
the network defined the terms.  You certainly do NOT always need a human
interface to have a legal contract.  

There are thousands of newspaper dispensing machines around the 
country.  They offer you a copy of the  "XYZ newspaper" for $x.
You put in $x and you take out one newspaper.  That was a contract
between you and the newspaper publisher/distributer.  If you take
out more than 2 copies of the newspaper, you have violated the
contract and while many places make that a criminal act (theft),
I see no reason the newspaper couldn't also file suit against
you for violation of an implied contract (although they could
probably only recover the cost of the "extra newspaper you
took).
In the newspaper example, there is NO human involved, do you think
that use of the machine (or any type of dispensing machine) doesn't
involve a contract between you and the distributer?

Another good example is the telephone in your home.  I don't recall
ever signing any agreement between myself and the telephone company.
I have an implied contract with the phone company to pay for the calls
I make from my phone, regardless of whetehr I agree or disagree
with the rates.  I make a call, and the telephone "network" accepts
it AND then I get a bill.  Believe it or not, none of that involved
human intervention in the sense that the call was accepted and
routed automatically, the billing information was generated automatically
and the bill itself was generated automatically.  You can not disclaim
paying a bill for any call you willing made on the basis that you
never agreed to the rates.

Bottom line, there is no requirement for a "human" to be involved 
to "represent" the network in order for there to be a contract.

Newsgroups: news.admin