🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:50:28 GMT, "Defender of Enormous Manhood"
<catwails@hotmale.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Guess what? You are wrong, dead wrong!
>They had an option not to provide him service when he first signed up -
>BEFORE they entered into a contract to provide "said service for said cost".
>
>The laws governing this are called "Torts", and it falls under civil rather
>than criminal laws.
>
>But be clear, costing too much is not a legitimate reason to "break" the
>contract which both he and they are bound. You do understand a contract is
>valid as soon as there is "mens rhea" (sp?) or in layman's terms "a meeting
>of the minds". No hand shake nor written paper is required. Therefore the
>only provision for them to get out of the contract is through violation of
>the Acceptable Use Policy, which you agreed would negate the agreement, or
>if you fail to pay that is grounds too to break the contract, because you
>agreed to pay them compensation for services rendered.

To a point but you should at least tell the whole story. If you go
into a contract and can prove you did not understand the contract the
contract is null and void.

If you are drunk and someone gets you to sign a contract that contract
is null and void if you can prove you were to drunk to understand what
was in the contract.

It can also be said that if you signed a contract that was in such
legal language that you could not understand it then it is also null
and void.

BTW you must be studing amersican law....