Friday Night Rants?

[Grumph]

Its not a contract. Licence and contract are not synonymous. Fuckwit.

Please, please, test this in court. I'm sure i'd hear the laughing in the SI.

My understanding of this is that you receive the licence as physical evidence that you've signed the contract to obey the road rules when you apply for permission to drive on the roads....and of course that you've passed the test required.

[mashman]

Its not a contract. Licence and contract are not synonymous. Fuckwit.

Edit. Im guessing you probably dont know what synonymous means so heres a short clip to help you out.

If you have signed anything with conditions, then it's a contract. Break the conditions and it's bye bye license. Fink about it broo.

[husaberg]

If you have signed anything with conditions, then it's a contract. Break the conditions and it's bye bye license. Fink about it broo.

Incorrect by legal definition a contract requires provisions for bargaining to have been made.
licences are just a take it or leave it proposition.
That said, break the written rules on either and there can be penalties enforced.

[Akzle]

Incorrect by legal definition a contract requires provisions for bargaining to have been made.
licences are just a take it or leave it proposition.
That said, break the written rules on either and there can be penalties enforced.

and where do you think you SIGNED UP for those rules, fuckwit.

It is a take it or leave it proposition. A bit like the price on your groceries. You legally CAN bargain, but it's construed that you've accepted the ts and cs when you take it to the counter.
(this is for everyone else, husa is too fuckin thick to get it)
Legally, however a contract requires full disclosure and consideration. But, all law is a contract. Governance is by consent.

[98tls]

and where do you think you SIGNED UP for those rules, fuckwit.

It is a take it or leave it proposition. A bit like the price on your groceries. You legally CAN bargain, but it's construed that you've accepted the ts and cs when you take it to the counter.
(this is for everyone else, husa is too fuckin thick to get it)
Legally, however a contract requires full disclosure and consideration. But, all law is a contract. Governance is by consent.

Or a bigger gun.

[husaberg]

Incorrect by legal definition a contract requires provisions for bargaining to have been made.
licences are just a take it or leave it proposition.
That said, break the written rules on either and there can be penalties enforced.

and where do you think you SIGNED UP for those rules, fuckwit.

It is a take it or leave it proposition. A bit like the price on your groceries. You legally CAN bargain, but it's construed that you've accepted the ts and cs when you take it to the counter.
(this is for everyone else, husa is too fuckin thick to get it)
Legally, however a contract requires full disclosure and consideration. But, all law is a contract. Governance is by consent.

I clearly and accurately posted the legal difference between a contract and a licence. You are just to thick to understand that.
As you clearly can't read a post, let alone a contract, I have a bridge for sale.


Shame you have no money and I don't accept goats as currency.

[Akzle]

I clearly and accurately posted the legal difference between a contract and a licence. You are just to thick to understand that.
As you clearly can't read a post, let alone a contract, I have a bridge for sale.


Shame you have no money and I don't accept goats as currency.

your too stupid to live. Kill yourself.

[husaberg]

your too stupid to live. Kill yourself.

Incorrect by legal definition a contract requires provisions for bargaining to have been made.
licences are just a take it or leave it proposition.
That said, break the written rules on either and there can be penalties enforced.

and where do you think you SIGNED UP for those rules, fuckwit.

It is a take it or leave it proposition. A bit like the price on your groceries. You legally CAN bargain, but it's construed that you've accepted the ts and cs when you take it to the counter.
(this is for everyone else, husa is too fuckin thick to get it)
Legally, however a contract requires full disclosure and consideration. But, all law is a contract. Governance is by consent.

Tell me, I didn't clearly point out the legal difference between a contract and a licience,while you were simply to stupid to realise that when you initially replied
ps youre to stupid

As for your example incorrect the deal is not made until you agree and pay for them.

[unstuck]

Tell me, I didn't clearly point out the legal difference while you were to stupid to realise that when you initially replied
ps youre to stupid

That would be "too stupid" , dummy.

[Jin]

But, all law is a contract. Governance is by consent.

Quoted for idiocy.

[Akzle]

Tell me, I didn't clearly point out the legal difference while you were to stupid to realise that when you initially replied
ps youre to stupid

no. You didnt. You typed two sentences. Citing no legal difference at all. Using the word "legal" in the sentence didnt help you at all.
The bargaining is taken as done when you sign. Which is what i said in my first reply.

Your too stupid. Kill youre self.

[Akzle]

Quoted for idiocy.

for someone who's been wrong three times in as many posts you might want to do a bit more research before mouthing off.

Or not, i mean, i dont care if you show youself to be an ignorant moron.

[husaberg]

no. You didnt. You typed two sentences. Citing no legal difference at all. Using the word "legal" in the sentence didnt help you at all.
The bargaining is taken as done when you sign. Which is what i said in my first reply.

Your too stupid. Kill youre self.

Incorrect by legal definition a contract requires provisions for bargaining to have been made.
licences are just a take it or leave it proposition.
That said, break the written rules on either and there can be penalties enforced.

Incorrect with a licence there is no bargaining, I clearly pointed that out. I have posted it over and over again, you are just too stupid to figure out the subtle legal difference.
Yet if you could count, you would see I typed three sentences, I subsequently repeated this post two further times, , with clearly defined differences and commonalities underlined, in order to highlight the point to people with sub par intelligence such as yourself.
Yet you still couldn't figure it out.

I will break it down into something you can understand
When your goatfucking bitch self got your drivers licence you were unable to add a clause stating you were able to have your "wifegoat" ride with you unrestrained in the front seat.
Conversely if your goatfukinbitch self ever got a job you could attempt to bargain to have provisions allowing you to have your "wifegoat"accompany you to work.

Contract law, by contrast, revolves around the notion that two (or more) parties have bargained or negotiated an exchange of promises and/or performance. This notion includes three fundamental concepts: that one of the contracting parties has made an "offer," the other party has "accepted" the offer, and the accepting party has demonstrated its commitment to the offer by providing some sort of "consideration" back to the offeror.

When a lawyer speaks of a software license (often also called a "license agreement"), typically the lawyer is referring to a contract between the copyright holder/software vendor ("licensor") and a person or entity that wants to use the software in some way ("licensee"), whether by integrating the software into another product or as an end user. Such license agreements usually consist of the copyright license granted by the licensor, plus other conditions or limitations on the licensee, or promises by the licensor, that are enforceable under contract law.

"The word 'license' has, and has had for hundreds of years, a specific technical meaning in the law of property. A license is a unilateral permission to use someone else's property. The traditional example given in the first-year law school Property course is an invitation to come to dinner at my house. If, when you cross my threshold, I sue you for trespass, you plead my 'license,' that is, my unilateral permission to enter on and use my property.

"A contract, on the other hand, is an exchange of obligations, either of promises for promises or of promises of future performance for present performance or payment. The idea that 'licenses' to use patents or copyrights must be contracts is an artifact of twentieth-century practice, in which licensors offered an exchange of promises with users: 'We will give you a copy of our copyrighted work,' in essence, 'if you pay us and promise to enter into certain obligations concerning the work.' With respect to software, those obligations by users include promises not to decompile or reverse-engineer the software, and not to transfer the software."

The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun licence (British, Indian, Canadian, Australian,New Zealand, Irish or South African English or license (American English) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission.
A license may be granted by a party ("licensor") to another party ("licensee") as an element of an agreement between those parties. A shorthand definition of a license is "an authorization (by the licensor) to use the licensed material (by the licensee).

A contract each contractual party must be a "competent person" having legal capacity. The parties may be natural persons ("individuals") or juristic persons ("corporations"). An agreement is formed when an "offer" is accepted. The parties must have an intention to be legally bound; and to be valid, the agreement must have both proper "form" and a lawful object. In England (and in jurisdictions using English contract principles), the parties must also exchange "consideration" to create a "mutuality of obligation," as in Simpkins v Pays

That would be "too stupid" , dummy.

Correct hippy.......

[oldrider]

All this from a guy (or guy's) who likes to brand others as bigoted anti-Semitic racists for daring to post mildly critical comments or observations of Zionist activities!

Selective self promotion of the moral high ground on steroids?

[husaberg]

All this from a guy (or guy's) who likes to brand others as bigoted anti-Semitic racists for daring to post mildly critical comments or observations of Zionist activities!

Selective self promotion of the moral high ground on steroids?

Most peoples morals exclude the fornication of goats as do the use of racist post. As far more than one person brand your and akzles posts as being profoundly bigoted racist and antisemetic, maybe you should take a few seconds to consider why that cap fits the both of you so well. Ergo as both of you two do not have bikes or post anything about them on what is a bike forum. the only logical reason either of you two post here is to espouse your racial agendas.