Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8917395" data-attributes="member: 7039850">However, what if I could claim that I had reasonable reason to believe I was invited? For instance if two houses next to each other are having identical signs reading "everyone is welcome to enter, as long as you don't wear shoes". I see a lot of people enter one of the houses with slippers. I assume it is commonly accepted that slippers do not count as shoes in this context, so I enter the other house wearing slippers. I then get sued to personal bankruptcy for ruining the floor of the second house. (It turns out that the owner of the first house was dead, which I didn't know).This also seem ripe for hostile exploit. A bad actor set up a company A publicly offering a contract, widely actively misrepresenting what it say. People take it up, and A enforces it according to the misrepresentation. The bad actor then sets up a second company B offering a contract with the same wording but stay silent about the meaning. After people take up the contract from B assuming it mean what A said, B can then spring whatever hidden trap is set up in the contract. As B did not misrepresent the contract, and A is not part to the contract, there appear to be no way out of the contract with B. And by not being a party of the contract with A, there are no way to seek damages from A either.My point is that both of these examples seem to be clear volitions of what I would expect anyone to be considered just. Laws are usually written to align with what is perceived as just. It might be indeed that this is an area were the laws are indeed flawed in that it enables such deeply problematic outcomes. I find it however surprising, given the widespread use of public contracts that there should be such gaping fundamental flaws in the basic law regarding this overall practice.</blockquote>

Verification