"because computers simply don't make decisions that have legal relevance" The computer is automatically firing people, that seems like legal relevance to me. I

"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?