In general, I agree with the passage below, because it reflects the major tenets of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). A couple of clarifications and additions are in order.
For starters, the UCC is assemblage of rules/codes that effect commerce, particularly interstate commerce. As such, any transgressions against the UCC are typically litigated in *State* courts, and the State UCCs, typically govern tort actions, unless a class action is assigned(although not always), or too much divergence on individual State UCCs precludes assignment of the case to a State Court. Most states have more restrictive definitions for contracts, with nearly all of them having provisions for a fourth aspect, namely "competent parties". Here is a representative definition from the state of California, which addresses this as a "contract defense", rather than a principal component of a legal contract: Capacity of the Parties In order to be bound to a contract, the parties must be competent to enter into such a legal arrangement. Underage persons, persons who are mentally ill, and intoxicated persons are usually not held to the contracts they enter. However, a minor may have the option of enforcing a contract. More here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c078.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c123.htm I assume that all parties to the transaction meet the criteria specified above. Regarding the rest of the post below, it is generally correct and coincides with my knowledge of the UCC and government contracting. While I am hardly a lawyer (nor would I want to be:-), I did work in government contracting for nearly four years, a better part of that time spent as a Contracting Specialist. Back to your regularly scheduled tech talk channel. HTH, Paul Werner > I feel it necessary to respond to this issue at this point in time. I > do > not know Debbie, nor have I communicated with her in any way and I do > not > intend to do so regarding this issue. I try to never judge a company or > person before hearing BOTH sides of the story. However, since you felt > it > necessary to weigh-in on Debbie's email. I will now act as judge on > what > appears to be the facts. > > I do not know what country either your company or Debbie are operating > in, > however I can only quote United States UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) > which > applies to ALL transactions in ALL states, whether by private parties or > public businesses. > > Only Three things must exists for a legal contract to exist: > > 1 - An Offer > Debbie's submission of her $100 bid to your system. > > 2 - Acceptance > Your email back to Debbie stating that her offer had been accepted > > 3 - Consideration > When Debbie provided her credit card number to the Pay system, it is > legally the same as placing cash in the hand of one of your company's > employees. > > Based on the evidence above, you both continue to have a legally binding > contract and in addition, you both have written evidence of that > contract > (in other words, not a verbal contract) which makes the case very > strong. > > I am not a lawyer and this is based on my personal understanding of the > law. > > If both parties operate in the United States, your company not only made > a > very poor decision by not fulfilling your obligation to Debbie, you have > also broken US commercial tort law. ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23428&t=23363 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
