im.py: a python communications tool

[Mark Janssen]

Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the

legal system works?

Gads. I'm trying to show you how the legal system *doesn't* work.
All your points may be valid under court history, but that history is
tainted. It doesn't mean the system is working, only that cases have
been decided. And the court should not be ruling on issues of such
accidents because guilt cannot established ("accidents" where there
was no intention of harm, nor tacit agreement made between any
parties) like a person giving a rose to their neighbor in an act of
good will. Such events should use mediators, not judges because their
is no *law* to be decided. The judges, or course, can act as
mediators, but the court system seems bogged down enough already.

I mean really, a good-will act? The Good Samaritan rules already
establish that you can't sue people for good faith acts. Do you
really want a world where *good intentions* are penalized? Come on --
that's why the system is broken and shame on every citizen that
continues this error in system of the People. It doesn't matter if
people get harmed, as long as good faith is in place before and after
the event. The "system" shouldn't get dragged in because you want to
act like a child and get your daddy to help you.

Mark

 

[Prasad, Ramit]

But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
that she'sgoing to *do something for you*. She's making a promise.
If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1
(!)

Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility
of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is
supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer.

On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you
still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees? And
getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.


~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.

 

[Mark Janssen]

Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility
of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is
supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer.

It is akin to publishing it. The law has not made a good distinction
about responsibility in this area. But I'm telling you that unless
money is exchanged THERE IS NO AGREEMENT MADE, implicit or otherwise.
If there is no agreement, then another party can't blame you for
something you didn't promise. Otherwise, I can blame you for
insulting my fashion sense.

On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you
still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees?

If someone brings you to court and fails to make their case, they've
inconvenienced everyone. The fair thing would be for the court to
require them to pay for your fees.

And
getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.

Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system. Judges can
be quite reasonable. They don't want more time taken for bullshit
cases and would much prefer for things to be settled (that is what
their duty is -- to settle matters, not to make lawyers wealthy).

Mark

 

[Neil Cerutti]

Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system.
Judges can be quite reasonable. They don't want more time
taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be
settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not
to make lawyers wealthy).

Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter.

 

[Prasad, Ramit]

Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter.

He is not completely wishful (for USA).
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/11...ogles-use-of-litigation-as-business-strategy/

Of course, not sure if the frustration will actually lead to
an action or is just idle talk.


~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or saleof
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.