Talk:Contract/Archive 2

message: This whole area of the law of contract has been totally omitted. In English law, third parties to a contract didn't have the right to sue either of the original parties. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v Selfridge Co. [1915] AC 847. An analysis of Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 on this area of law needs to be included. Willstansfield 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights of Third Parties 

message: Deed at wikipedia seems to make no mention of this option, which exists in UK law, nor does Contract. Used for example in building contracts for numerous reasons, primary effect to increase the statute of limitation from 6 years to 12 years on such contracts. I was looking for the precise definition of it, clearly missing, so don't feel I ought to add to this page myself (not an expert on law, far from it, but if someone with legal knowledge reads this... Graldensblud 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contracts signed "under deed" 

message: EULAs in software seem to violate the fundamental form of contract (by adding unspecified terms after the exchange of value), and the very least I think the topic is worthy of linkage here.  Thoughts?  Belltower 16:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that arguement made before, but am not an expert.Graldensblud 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EULAs

message: I've recently stumbled accross a contract which I've signed that stated "(This organisation) reserves the right to change, amend, or modify these rules at any time without prior notice."
Is this really legal?
They keep adding new laws to it without notification. And I'm getting blamed for breaking them.
: They probably are - they're quite common. If they're really unfair though, could you probably complain to your local consumer watchdog. enochlau (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...without prior notice. 

message: Wikidea writes, with my comments in bold intermixed.
There is a muddled structure. e.g. Comparing contract and tort at the start isn't helpful, when you aren't sure yet what either are; -> agree e.g.2 why would the so called bilateral v. unilateral contracts section not be put in the same part as the so called elements of a contract section? -> because those are two types of a contract, not elements which every contract must have Especially considering both are discussions straight out of Carlill v. Carbolic it's probably better to leave the seminal case of the law of contract as the top. The dog example in the bilateral v. unilateral contracts section is straight from what Bowen LJ said in the same case:
::"If I advertise to the world that my dog is lost, and that anybody who brings the dog to a particular place will be paid some money, are all the police or other persons whose business it is to find lost dogs to be expected to sit down and write me a note saying that they have accepted my proposal? Why, of course, they at once look after the dog, and as soon as they find the dog they have performed the condition. The essence of the transaction is that the dog should be found, and it is not necessary under such circumstances, as it seems to me, that in order to make the contract binding there should be any notification of acceptance."
::Although that's probably more succinctly and eloquently expressed than in the current article! Better to start people off with Carlill (as almost every textbook does!) -> If you mean move something up from farther down, go for it. I have a big problem with your deletes of useful information. Rearranging for clarity is always fine. 
::2. There is too much "this and that is what a contract is" without references, and unfortunately it's often incorrect. -> specific examples please The best parts of the article are at the bottom, where there's more case law dealt with. -> disagree. In an encyclopedia entry on contracts, one of the first things better be "what a contract is".  The lists at the top are repetitive. Both in the 'scope' and the 'elements' sections are references to 'capacity' to contract, the second part saying "...minor children, and mentally disabled individuals do not have the capacity to form a contract, and any contracts with them will be considered void or voidable."  This is untrue. Of course children and mentally disabled people can make valid contracts. Quite right, there are (sometimes) different rules for kids and mentally disabled people, but more importantly, where is the reference to tell anyone? -> A reference would be nice, and perhaps this may be local government specific. What I will tell you is that in the United States, neither children, the insane, prisoners, animals, trees, or rocks are free to make contacts with people, as they are not sui juris. Are you saying that in Austrailia, children are allowed to make legal decisions for themselves? Then can a 10 y/o get married in Perth? I don't think so, or please cite case law from any showing that children can make contracts. I'm talking about civilized nations, where children do not perform compulsory labor, or work as prostitues, etc. 
::3. There is no need to exclude civil law. For example, in the Buergerliches Gesetzbuch (the German civil code) para. 110 (the notorious Taschengeldparagraf or 'pocket money paragraph') is authority for children to be able to make contracts. I noticed at the top of the current page it asks for a worldwide view, and that's fair. So it's a bad idea to put in titles things like Scope of common law contract law when it may go for contract law in all jurisdictions. -> So how about general concepts, and when-needed, saying "but this feature is not universally held, e.g., in Foostanislad, children drink alcohol, get married, fight in wars, and start businesses" It's an even worse idea when scope of contract law doesn't really mean anything. What does scope of contract law mean? -> I agree, these seem weird Wouldn't that imply its place within the law of obligations? That section doesn't tell people, but instead talks about contractual formation, which is a more sensible heading.
::4. Headings should try to have main links to other articles, esp. in such a big subject. That's why some more headings that were reverted had links to other articles - like offer and acceptance, consideration, etc. -> If you mean this article is way too long in addition to being disorganized, I strongly agree. Big ancillary topics should be broken up into distinct articles. I think the "elements of a contract" section is the essence (the part you keep deleting), but we have to deal with "contract law" because that redirects here. I wasn't quite sure what Bhuston meant by not following the Wikimanual, or which bit of it you had in mind. You weren't bolding the first occurance of the main title. Several things redirect here, so there may be several of these bolded. But I hope you agree that change isn't bad agree, and incrementalism isn't good  -> incremental change to good sections is desirable, and boldly whack the bad. Problem is, you were blanking the best part, just for the sake of it. More references would be great, especially from different countries. agree... I'll write more later, with specific problems with your edit. But I have an emergency to deal with now :( User:Wikidea -- Bhuston 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of present article, Wikidea's edits