From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 15:40:36 GMT

In article <23600@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj,  curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.010318.19818@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>The mere fact that there is disagreement proves there is no "meeting
>>>of the minds". 
>
>>By the same "reasoning", **ALL** contracts are null and void, if either party
>>challenges their validity.
>
>Was there a meeting of the minds when the contract was established?
>
>You seem determined to not accept the very basis of contract law,
>as does Ford.

With a written contract, there is clearly a meeting of the minds in
that both parties sign the agreement.  With verbal, impled, etc.
contracts, I submit that it is the actions of the parties to the
contract that determine if there is a "meeting of the minds" and it
requires the ability of BOTH parties to accept any changed aspects
of the contract for those changes to be a part of the contract.

Clearly, the courts are often asked to rule on this issue.

By another example, if you would like to borrow my car and I say fine,
but I want the gas tank full when it is returned plus a $20 fee
and I say if that is OK with you, then just take the car tomorrow
and use it as the keys will be under the floor mat.  If, you then
use the car, never having said you actually would, then you are
agreeing to the terms I set down even if you think I should only
get $10.  You and I have a contract as soon as you followed through
with the use of the car, you can not change the terms, as I had no
opportunity to agree
to any change.  If, after using the car you only pay me $10 claiming
there wasn't a "meeting of the minds," who's side will the court
support (assuming there were witnesses to the $20 stated terms)?

Likewise, the network stands ready to accept anyone's post and
distribute it far and wide (the offer) with no limitations being
placed on the distribution.  A poster, posts an article (the 
acceptance).  The network accepts the post (the poster's consideration)
and the network distributes it (the networks consideration).

For someone to say, I'm going to use something offered (the
distribution process of the USENet), but I
expect that the terms of that offer must be changed to my 
demands knowing there's no way for the offering party/entity
(USENet/network) to accept
those demands just doesn't make sense.  AND, I eagerly await 
someone to test that in court.  Stating otherwise at this point
is just a futile waste of time.

Clearly, "the ball is in the court" of those that claim the network
should bend to their will/demands on restricted copying
limitations that they wish to impose on their posts.  Their
unwillingness to carry through (shoot the damn ball)
on their claims against USENet
(the network) supports the way the network works today as every 
additional day passes and with every additional post that they
post.

The network lives, it goes on and its emminent death is greatly
exaggerated by some.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com