Michael > I was set up for a laugh by the heading of the non-capitalised text, > "WITNESSETH". It's not in either of my dictionaries, and > www.dictionary.com has no entries. Good fun, but it leads to some > interesting questions. If a legal document contains a made-up word > without definition can it have a legal meaning? If an agreement > contains words so archaic that the reader can't reasonably be > expected to be sure of their meaning is the agreement valid? If an > agreement is written in English is it binding on a person who agrees > by clicking even if they can't read English?
I seem to remember some court ruling that these 'click-licenses' and 'shrink wrap licenses" are unenforceable in all but the most sinister of violations. IOW, it's hard for anyone to get prosecuted by them. In fact, I seem to remember somewhere reading that MS is actually in violation of it's own license. > > Anyway, back to work... Me too. Have to make more money to pay the lawyers ;-) -Chipp _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution