Re: applets, applications and static declarations
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, John B. Matthews wrote:
In article <alpine.DEB.1.10.1001232035230.26106@urchin.earth.li>,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
I presume, then, that what the shouty warnings about not using the
software in nuclear power plants etc are all about is not disclaiming
warranty, but pointing out to the recipient that no warranty exists.
IUUC, the "shouty" part may come from the definition of "Conspicuous"
[?2-103] and "Exclusion or Modification of Warranties" [?2-316]:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-101>
Aha, yes, that certainly looks likely.
Creative application of "Buyer" and "Seller" is the litigator's
stock-in-trade.
True, but there are limits. Lawyers aren't wizards, and despite the
popular impression that it's simply the party with the biggest, strongest
lawyers that wins, as they were some kind of pokemon with sharp suits, if
the law says so, it's so.
From the UCC:
2-106. (1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires
"contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present
or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present
sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale"
consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price
(Section 2-401).
The title here is to the license to use the software. Where's the price?
Something i failed to mention in my previous post is that all this is
based on English common law, so it only applies to jurisidictions which
have inherited that, which means the UK, the USA, and i assume Canada,
Australia, etc. Civil law jurisdictions mostly don't, AIUI, have the
concept of consideration, so it's possible that there, giving someone a
gift (which is essentially what is happening here) creates a contract,
from which a warranty might arise.
tom
--
Rapid oxidation is the new black. -- some Mike