3 ms·

> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Because order is important. On the web,

• kbenson 11y ago
  > If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. > I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract. I think this is relevant[1]. I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Why is this content being provided? To assume it's freely available without any cost is a very self-serving view. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
  • baddox 11y ago
    > I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre. > I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.
    • kbenson 11y ago
      > Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre. I believe we should. I think we rarely do (including myself). The terms were clear. I'm not arguing my point in the hope that we all stop using ad-blockers, I'm arguing my point in the hope that we we can realize that there's a bit of bad behavior on our part as consumers as well (that there's bad behavior from purveyors of ads or that it started with them I believe and accept as fact, but I don't think that entirely alleviates our culpability). > Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent. I have no problem with you withholding your consent. I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for. I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it. I can lay it out in myriad different ways, with different goods, difference services, but in the end, I think they are all the same thing. There's a trade going on, and if you aren't fulfilling your side, you have no right to the goods of the other side. That you've received the goods makes no difference to me. I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it). Your consent matters only as to whether you want to complete the trade. You consent has no bearing on whether you have right to goods after you've chosen not to trade, at least not legally, or I would submit, morally.
      • baddox 11y ago
        > The terms were clear. But that's just it. The terms weren't clear when the transaction occurred. To me, temporal order is important. It's basically the concept of "informed consent." > I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for. Again, the order of events matters. > I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it. I disagree about whether I'm "supposed" to have it. I don't have a problem with acquiring something in a transaction (and agreeing to all terms at the moment of the transaction) and then using it in a way the other party did not intend. > I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it). But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term. I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.