🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <168B5D0ED.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.173924.29743@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>naft0001@student.ec.umn.edu (Gene Naftulyev) writes:
> 
>>
>>Subject: Don't sell to or buy from Gary Goldberg
>>
>>As an update (this topic is very active in computers.mac) Garry has
>>replied twice but both times has essentially sid SOL and that he can do
>>anything he want's since no money had exchanged hands...

** An intention that money should change hands at some point along
   with an offer, acceptance and an intention to create legal relations
   is sufficient to create a legally binding contract.

   The exchange of money can often evidence the existance of a contract.
   However, the mere intention that money should change hands at some
   point is sufficient.

   Incidentally in the construction of a contract, an offer is valid
   when received and acceptance is valid when posted. This rule applies
   to contracts made through the post and where the parties are not
   inter presentis (not present). I cannot speak for American law, however,
   as it is not entirely clear whether the standard rules of contractal
   construction or the postal rule applies in the case of contracts made
   over the network. Could it be argued that the parties to the contract
   are both present at the same time ? This could be validly argued 
   both ways.

   Clearly, however, in this case, a contract does appear to exist.
   The way the contract came into force could be the discussion of 
   a legal debate, but at the moment this is neither here nor there.


   
   



-- 
         *********************************************************
         *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk  *
         *     LL.B.  Law  III     *     Coventry  University    *
         *********************************************************