From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 19 13:08:44 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789E816A400 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:08:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FB813C441 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:08:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.22]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2007 08:08:43 -0500 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id MUK55878; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:08:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-6-203-219.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.203.219]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2007 08:08:34 -0500 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17840.49851.514218.652819@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:08:11 -0500 To: "freebsd-questions" In-Reply-To: <013901c73b9b$8b074e70$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> References: <04E232FDCD9FBE43857F7066CAD3C0F126733D@svmailmel.bytecraft.internal> <45B01FEC.1030008@chapman.edu> <013901c73b9b$8b074e70$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta27) "fiddleheads" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090204.45B0C0DC.0092,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=207.172.4.11, so=2006-05-09 23:27:51, dmn=5.2.125/2006-10-10 Subject: Re: Mail etiquette X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:08:44 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > For example, you can hold a gun to someone's head and make them > sign a contract. The second you walk away they take the contract > to a court and bam, it's invalidated because they signed under > duress. > > And if you look at recent court decisions, the definition of > signing under duress has been -exceedingly- stretched these days. > Nowadays if someone can convince a court that the contract holder > didn't completely inform them of every last little condition, they > can invalidate the contract. "Consent" in the legal sense has two usually omitted qualifiers: "fully informed" and "freely given". Duress negates the second; failure to provide adequate information can negate the first. That being said, it may wall be the case the working definition of "adequate" has expanded over time. How it changed, and why, is no doubt the subject of ongoing enquiry. Robert Huff