Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Hey, the intent is clear enough, and Brigade sees this as an implicit contract.

The only way you get anything remotely resembling something such as an implicit contract is by butchering the legal concept into unrecognizability, which admittedly, the tech sector has enabled other sectors to do with wild abandon. A contract requires a meeting of the minds, consideration for all, and to explicitly lay out mutually agreed upon terms. Unless both sides agreed to see it the same way, it isn't a contract. It's a worthy subject to resolve via litigation, and to be frank, out as the Brigade at significant risk of possible criminal charges if a judge is not amused and Citibank heads to the Attorney General.



Isn't the whole point of the UCC to remove all sorts of litigious details in contract situations like making payments?

eg, If I agree to pay my babysitter $50 and write an American-style check (aka bank draft), me and the babysitter don't need to negotiate the finer details of that payment method.


Yes. However, you have the capability to void and recover the sums represented by that cheque. It's built into the system in that sense. This is why most debt servicers implement different flows for early payments. You need an explicit indication from the payer they intended to make that extra payment. It may not seem like as big a thing when you're talking small-claims court amounts of money, but once you hit the bigger tiers of financial transaction, this is exactly why people are dedicated toward ensuring all the i's are dotted and t's crossed in order to ensure payments in the right amount end up in the right places in the right amounts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: