| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
They have enough moneyThey have enough moneyPosted Sep 25, 2009 16:18 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Google shutting down independent Android image developers? by me@jasonclinton.com Parent article: Google shutting down independent Android image developers?
And I even _pay_ for my GMail account.Just curious: why pay for GMail when you can have it for free? I would have thought that, unlike LWN.net, Google earns enough money already.
(Log in to post comments)
They have enough money Posted Sep 25, 2009 16:37 UTC (Fri) by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701) [Link]
It's Google Apps and it has an SLA, a legal agreement between you and Google concerning services promised, it binds to a domain name, and it offers no advertising in the UI, at all.
They have enough money Posted Sep 26, 2009 5:40 UTC (Sat) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
Unless you pay for a service, there is no contract between you. And without a contract you can't do anything if something goes wrong (say, the service is down or someone steals all your email and you loose business, for example).
They have enough money Posted Sep 26, 2009 21:21 UTC (Sat) by jhoger (guest, #33302) [Link]
You can enter a contract without exchanging money.
For there to be a contract, there must be consideration, but that need not be monetary. And in some cases a judge can even create a fictitious contract to prevent an injustice. If you see folks painting your house, but you didn't order the service, and you do nothing to inform them, you could end up paying for it.
Not that any of this applies in this case...
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 4:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
> And in some cases a judge can even create a fictitious contract to prevent an injustice. If you see folks painting your house, but you didn't order the service, and you do nothing to inform them, you could end up paying for it.
Maybe in some (really really scary and iniquitous) jurisdictions, but absolutely not under English law (and its derivatives), as established by lots and lots of lovely case law (which I could probably dig out and quote to you if you're at all interested). Indeed, the principle that contracts cannot be created retroactively is pretty much a foundation stone of English contract law - because obviously the injustice created by someone being dropped in a contract they had no way to avoid is far greater in principle than the injustice created by someone not being paid for a job they were never obliged to do.
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 15:03 UTC (Thu) by txwikinger (subscriber, #57821) [Link]
A contract under common law needs in general the construction of consideration on both sides, an agreement and the intention into enter a legally binding relationship. Obviously, this is not the case when someone just starts painting your house.
However, there is also a construct called unilateral contract which is for example can be a promise to pay a reward, which is not made to a particular person. I.e. if someone would say, the "I will pay X to the first person painting my house", and someone then would just go an paint the house, it is likely a court would find a contract being established.
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 18:12 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
That is true (cf. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - one of the formative cases of modern contract law in England), but in such cases the precise conditions required for the formation of a contract have still been specified and met ahead of time - an offer has been made and accepted. Premeditation and exactitude remain essential. (Consider, for example, someone saying, very loudly and after much libation, "If someone were to paint my house, they'd find themselves very much better off." Sufficient to form a contract? I'd contend not.)
|
|
||||||||||||