[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:02:15 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work. . ." It's called a promise for a grant of rights.

<> ...provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

Deliberately reading only the permission but not the condition doesn't even get you anywhere on Usenet, much less before a court

There goooooooooooooooooooooooes the goalposts. Claiming that a
contractual COVENANT is a CONDITION will get you nowhere on Usenet
or in court:

"It is undoubtedly true, as claimed by appellant, that stipulations
in a contract are not construed as conditions precedent unless that
construction is made necessary by the terms of the contract. (
Deacon v. Blodget, 111 Cal. 418, [44 Pac. 159]; Antonelle v. Lumber
Co., 140 Cal. 318, [73 Pac. 966].) There are also well considered
cases holding that provided does not necessarily impose a condition.
In Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, [18 N. W. 177], it is said: 'But
the words, "upon the express condition," as here used, or the words
"if it shall so happen" or "provided however" and the like do not
always make a condition, and it is often a nice question to
determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always
construe similar clauses in a deed as covenants rather than as
conditions, if they can reasonably do so.' (2 Washburn on Real
Property, 4.)"; Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911).

See also:

"A condition precedent, [*10] as is relevant here, "is either an act
of a party that must be performed or an uncertain event that
must happen before the contractual right accrues or the
contractual duty arises." Platt Pac., Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal. 4th
307, 313, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 597, 862 P.2d 158 (1993). "Conditions
precedent are disfavored and will not be read into a contract unless
required by plain, unambiguous language." Effects Associates, Inc.
v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 559 n.7 (9th Cir. 1990).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]