6 ms·

No, in basically all countries even verbal contracts are valid and enforceable.

by mk67 2y ago

BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Except when they are not. In Europe you get a contract following such agreement and you have time to refuse it. This is one of the reasons tele-sales do not work that well here (telemarketing is still an abomination, though)
zcw100 2y ago
Enforceable but not necessarily enforced.
- mk67 2y ago
  It definitely will be if you go to court. As soon as you have any witnesses there is little chance to get out of a verbal contract.
  - zcw100 2y ago
    This is a gross simplification of the law. There isn't some "gotcha" like some schoolyard disagreement. "I gotcha! You said it! Derik heard it you gotta do it now! Do it Do it! Do it!" Yes, you can enforce a verbal contract. You'll need to show what exactly you agreed to which is going to be vague due to the nature of a verbal contract. You'll need to show an offer and acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legal capacity, and certainty. So no, you can't offer to buy your buddy's car for $1 when you're at the bar grabbing a beer and have them say, "haha, deal" and expect to get their car.
cobbzilla 2y ago
At least in the US, establishing a legal contract requires more than just an attestation and agreement by both parties (verbal or written or telegraphed or whatever). For example it’s not a contract if there is no “consideration”, a legal term meaning the parties have exchanged something of value. IANAL, but “abuse of telecom resources” is the more likely flavor of legal hot-water you might land in. I would absolutely not worry about a fraudster taking me to court.
- smsm42 2y ago
  Contract requires "meeting of minds", i.e. intentional assent from both sides. I am not sure text generated by fully automated bot can be treated as intentional assent.
  - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
    All this non-lawyer programmer legal analysis is always fun because no one really knows. When I send email aren't I just telling my email "robot" to do something? This is one layer beyond that, my 'llm robot' is sending text messages on my behalf.
    - smsm42 2y ago
      When you send an email, there's your conscious intent behind it. So it doesn't matter what technology is in between, as long as your mind is moving it. If you didn't intend it (as in, I know you are on vacation and send you an email saying "if you agree to pay me $1000 send me back a vacation reply" then your mail system sending me a vacation reply does not constitute an intentional action, because it would send the reply to anything. It is true that I am not a lawyer, but laws often make sense, and derive from common sense. Not always, but is such a fundamental matter as contracts they usually do make sense.
      - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
        That's a good example. But that auto reply is a kind of bot. "Sensible" is just separate from what's legally actionable in too many cases. I do see llms as just that next step in auto replay. We already know companies use them to process your text requests / descriptions when getting help, and they auto-answer things and there are endless stories even today of awful unsuitable responses triggered on llm systems.
        smsm42 2y ago
        All true, but these llm systems aren't random, there's certain intent behind them, they are supposed to do something. So if they do what they are supposed to, then the intent - which is human intent - exists, but it's something that the human creator of the tool did not intend, I don't think any human court would recognize it as a basis for a contract.
_huayra_ 2y ago
But verbal between whom? How can one be sure they're talking to a human on the other end of an SMS and not a chatbot? We already went over how this doesn't work more than a year ago with the $1 Tahoe [0]. Spoiler: no car changed hands based on that "agreement". [0] https://jalopnik.com/chevrolet-dealer-ai-help-chatbot-goes-rogue-pranksters-1851112556 https://jalopnik.com/chevrolet-dealer-ai-help-chatbot-goes-r...
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  On the other hand, Air Canada was forced to honor a refund policy made up by a chatbot [1]. That was in Canada, not the US, but it nonetheless points out to courts willing to accept that a promise made by a chatbot you programmed to speak in your name is just as good as a promise you made yourself. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-...

No, in basically all countries even verbal contracts are valid and enforceable.

by mk67 2y ago

No, in basically all countries even verbal contracts are valid and enforceable.

Except when they are not. In Europe you get a contract following such agreement and you have time to refuse it. This is one of the reasons tele-sales do not work that well here (telemarketing is still an abomination, though)

zcw100 2y ago

Enforceable but not necessarily enforced.

mk67 2y ago
It definitely will be if you go to court. As soon as you have any witnesses there is little chance to get out of a verbal contract.
- zcw100 2y ago
  This is a gross simplification of the law. There isn't some "gotcha" like some schoolyard disagreement. "I gotcha! You said it! Derik heard it you gotta do it now! Do it Do it! Do it!" Yes, you can enforce a verbal contract. You'll need to show what exactly you agreed to which is going to be vague due to the nature of a verbal contract. You'll need to show an offer and acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legal capacity, and certainty. So no, you can't offer to buy your buddy's car for $1 when you're at the bar grabbing a beer and have them say, "haha, deal" and expect to get their car.

cobbzilla 2y ago

At least in the US, establishing a legal contract requires more than just an attestation and agreement by both parties (verbal or written or telegraphed or whatever). For example it’s not a contract if there is no “consideration”, a legal term meaning the parties have exchanged something of value. IANAL, but “abuse of telecom resources” is the more likely flavor of legal hot-water you might land in. I would absolutely not worry about a fraudster taking me to court.

smsm42 2y ago
Contract requires "meeting of minds", i.e. intentional assent from both sides. I am not sure text generated by fully automated bot can be treated as intentional assent.
- Alive-in-2025 2y ago
  All this non-lawyer programmer legal analysis is always fun because no one really knows. When I send email aren't I just telling my email "robot" to do something? This is one layer beyond that, my 'llm robot' is sending text messages on my behalf.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    When you send an email, there's your conscious intent behind it. So it doesn't matter what technology is in between, as long as your mind is moving it. If you didn't intend it (as in, I know you are on vacation and send you an email saying "if you agree to pay me $1000 send me back a vacation reply" then your mail system sending me a vacation reply does not constitute an intentional action, because it would send the reply to anything. It is true that I am not a lawyer, but laws often make sense, and derive from common sense. Not always, but is such a fundamental matter as contracts they usually do make sense.
    - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
      That's a good example. But that auto reply is a kind of bot. "Sensible" is just separate from what's legally actionable in too many cases. I do see llms as just that next step in auto replay. We already know companies use them to process your text requests / descriptions when getting help, and they auto-answer things and there are endless stories even today of awful unsuitable responses triggered on llm systems.
      - smsm42 2y ago
        All true, but these llm systems aren't random, there's certain intent behind them, they are supposed to do something. So if they do what they are supposed to, then the intent - which is human intent - exists, but it's something that the human creator of the tool did not intend, I don't think any human court would recognize it as a basis for a contract.

_huayra_ 2y ago

But verbal between whom? How can one be sure they're talking to a human on the other end of an SMS and not a chatbot? We already went over how this doesn't work more than a year ago with the $1 Tahoe [0]. Spoiler: no car changed hands based on that "agreement". [0] https://jalopnik.com/chevrolet-dealer-ai-help-chatbot-goes-rogue-pranksters-1851112556 https://jalopnik.com/chevrolet-dealer-ai-help-chatbot-goes-r...

probably_wrong 2y ago
On the other hand, Air Canada was forced to honor a refund policy made up by a chatbot [1]. That was in Canada, not the US, but it nonetheless points out to courts willing to accept that a promise made by a chatbot you programmed to speak in your name is just as good as a promise you made yourself. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-...