

Your auto-responder won't bind you to a contract - ChuckMcM
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/04/acknowledging_r.htm

======
ChuckMcM
I'm always amazed at how people try to work the laws. This guy tried something
I have always wondered about, he sends an email that says "if you respond to
this you agree to be bound by the following contract..." Which he has actually
litigated! Which is what makes it interesting from an HN perspective. Not to
mention the clear way Eric explains what it takes to engage someone in a
contract.

~~~
jacques_chester
I predict that this will be an expanding area of law in future.

To form a contract you need a number of elements, one of which is a signal of
assent. Traditionally for written contracts you can use signatures and seals.
For verbal it can be something like "OK", "done" or "agreed".

The question is: can one party unilaterally impose the form of that signal?
The answer here is apparently "no". And this is the sensible decision IMO
because it would make it too easy to trap people into "giving" assent when
they did not intend to. Assent should be in a form acceptable to both parties
_or_ in a known form widely recognised (such as signatures).

Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

