3 ms·

There's a limit to that somewhere though? There's some minimum input that the controller needs to put in. If Outlook took it upon itself to send "you're hired"

There's a limit to that somewhere though? There's some minimum input that the controller needs to put in. If Outlook took it upon itself to send "you're hired" emails to all applicants for a job, that wouldn't be legally binding right? I suspect the line isn't where I would like it to be in this situation though. Thinking about a generalised rule, requiring the counterparty be human if the original party is human? That seems reasonable and workable?

Retra 8y ago
There doesn't need to be any rule, because computers simply don't make decisions that have legal relevance. Nothing a computer does is legally binding; things humans do using computers may be. Computers only facilitate things that humans do. If Outlook sends "you're hired" emails, it is legally binding if its controller intended to enter into a contract, and not if it was an error or accident. You don't have to consider the behavior of the computer at all when deciding legal ramifications.
- benj111 8y ago
  "because computers simply don't make decisions that have legal relevance" The computer is automatically firing people, that seems like legal relevance to me. It is making the decision (on some level) without human input. High frequency traders buy and sell without human interaction. Is that not another example? If there were an error, as with the Outlook example, there was absolutely no human input, so obviously there wasn't intent, therefore it isn't legally binding. There is a continuum between a human doing everything, and a human doing nothing. At some point a legal line is crossed. On one side the computer is following a humans instructions, on the other it is working independently. Where is that legal line, what happens if a computer enters into a contract when working independently?
  - Retra 8y ago
    No computer runs without human input. My computer isn't firing people right now. Why? Because I didn't set it up to do so.

Retra 8y ago

There doesn't need to be any rule, because computers simply don't make decisions that have legal relevance. Nothing a computer does is legally binding; things humans do using computers may be. Computers only facilitate things that humans do. If Outlook sends "you're hired" emails, it is legally binding if its controller intended to enter into a contract, and not if it was an error or accident. You don't have to consider the behavior of the computer at all when deciding legal ramifications.

benj111 8y ago
"because computers simply don't make decisions that have legal relevance" The computer is automatically firing people, that seems like legal relevance to me. It is making the decision (on some level) without human input. High frequency traders buy and sell without human interaction. Is that not another example? If there were an error, as with the Outlook example, there was absolutely no human input, so obviously there wasn't intent, therefore it isn't legally binding. There is a continuum between a human doing everything, and a human doing nothing. At some point a legal line is crossed. On one side the computer is following a humans instructions, on the other it is working independently. Where is that legal line, what happens if a computer enters into a contract when working independently?
- Retra 8y ago
  No computer runs without human input. My computer isn't firing people right now. Why? Because I didn't set it up to do so.