dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (03/31/89)
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer] In article <2232@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >In article <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) writes: ><[...]Just because you didn't read the request to pay ><doesn't mean you don't _have_ to pay. If you go into a barber shop and ><sit down, and get your hair cut, you can't complain that you "never ><read" the sign with the prices posted, you are certainly obligated to ><pay. >< >< "In the absence of a contrary statute, acceptance of goods >< or services by a person who did not request them is an >< expression of assent to contract if that person knew >< or reasonably should have known that the goods or services >< were offered with the expectation of compensation". >< (Chem-Teonix Laboratories, Inc., v. Solocast Company, 5 Conn. >< Cir. 533, 258 A.2d 110 (1968)). All these alleged precedents are based on situations where acceptance of the 'goods or services' renders them in some degree unavailable to others. This is not so for certain forms of software distribution such as BBS and the net, for which broadcasting is a better analogy. Public radio stations typically have on-air fundraisers every few months, and one certainly gets the impression that they 'expect to be paid' by at least some people, but they are realistic enough to know that not all listeners will pay. Broadcasters who *really* want their listeners to pay, scramble their transmissions and sell the means of decoding. The moral (IMHO) seems to be that those who are serious about being paid nevertheless can't reasonably expect redress for non-payment unless they adopt a more restricted form of distribution than open broadcasting.