In gnu.misc.discuss Rahul Dhesi <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> writes, following up to Rjack: > >>How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the >>parties involved?.... > > Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading. > Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject > heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux > patent lock-down ..". > > Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine a > remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he came to > the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base a remedy on > contract law, therefore there is no difference between a license and a > contract. And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to > form a contract.
He seems to be suffering a deal of epistemological confusion. Whilst some unfortunate people can't distinguish reality from fantasy, RJack can't distinguish reality from words. > So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same flawed > argument under yet another subject heading. That's a bit like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow morning. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
