[Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol
amccullagh at live.com
Fri Jun 24 19:03:37 EDT 2016
Dear M.K. Shen,
What you are proposing just does not make commercial or legal sense.
The law does not work for your proposal.
There can only be a contract if there is agreement as to what Alice offers. If Bob simply ignores the offer then no agreement arises. Only is very rare cases can there be a deeming of intent to create an contrcat.
There 5 basic elements in the creation of a contract/agreement to be enforceable at law:
· An offer is communicated from person A (Alice)
· Person B (Bob) unequivocally accepts the terms of Alice’s offer and communicates that acceptance to Alice;
· There is consideration supporting the agreement/contract;
· There is an intention to create legal relations which for the most part is determine by an objective test but can be inferred in a commercial setting as opposed to a domestic setting (family arrangements); and
· Both parties have legal capacity to be bound by the terms of the contract.
The acceptance must be communicated and for the most part received by the offeror for there to be a contract. Bob is under no legal obligation to do anything with Alices Offer. As far as I am aware that is teh law in all common law countries which includes teh UK, USA, Canada and Australia.
Unless I am missing something and with respect this proposal of yours will not be accepted by the law or by commerce. In essence I still do not see any unfairness.
Dr. Adrian McCullagh
Ph.D. LL.B. (Hons) B.App. Sc. (Computing)
Email: ajmccullagh57 at gmail.com
Email: amccullagh at live.com
MOB: +61 401 646 486
The contents of this email are confidential between the sender and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient then no rights are granted to you because of this error and you are requested to promptly inform the sender of the error and to promptly destroy all copies of the email in your power, possession or control. The sender reserves all rights concerning this email including any privilege, copyright and confidentiality associated with this email. Even though an email signature block has been appended to this email, and despite the Electronic Transactions Act (Qld) or the Electronic Transactions Act (Cth), the signature block does not exhibit the senders intention to be bound by an offer previously sent by the intended recipient, unless the email specifically states otherwise.
From: mok-kong shen<mailto:mok-kong.shen at t-online.de>
Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2016 8:46 AM
To: Salz, Rich<mailto:rsalz at akamai.com>; cryptography at metzdowd.com<mailto:cryptography at metzdowd.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol
Am 24.06.2016 um 16:08 schrieb Salz, Rich:
>> (a) The definition of unfairness I have in mind is: A valid contract C is unfair in
>> its signing processing, if there existed a certain finite time interval in which
>> one partner had already fully committed while the other had yet the
>> freedom to commit or not.
> This is handled by language that says the contract is not binding until all parties sign.
Sorry that I don't yet fully understand what you meant. In which aspect
exactly are you criticizing my definition? (Why couldn't I employ such
M. K. Shen
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography at metzdowd.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cryptography