Buzzed?

What agreement?

This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
have accepted whatever follows.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
What agreement?


This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
have accepted whatever follows.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.


Matt

Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit!


Matt Whiting wrote:
Jose wrote:

What agreement?



This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.



A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign
that says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there,
you have accepted whatever follows.


I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.


Matt

Robert Chambers wrote:
Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit!

I thought folks might like that example ... which, if course, is
completely hypothetical!

Matt

If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.

Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law that has nothing to
do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
the difference? $300/hr to get a guess.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to
murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that
to be entering into a valid contract.


Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law that has nothing to
do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
the difference? $300/hr to get a guess.

The law isn't worth the paper it's written on, or the sign it's screen
printed on, it's unenforceable.

Jose wrote:

If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to
murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that
to be entering into a valid contract.


Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law that has nothing to
do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
the difference? $300/hr to get a guess.

Yes, that is my point. It is illegal for a local government to attempt
to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government, therefore
buying fuel here does not constitute a contract.

Matt

It is illegal for a local government to attempt to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government

Is it legal for a citizen to do the same? "I will let you drive my car
as long as you don't fly an airplane into this airport."

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

What agreement?

This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...

The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was
a bi-plane showing off that darn near hit a hangar. There was a local
tenant that decided to do a low (25') pass down the runway the same day.
This with all the YE events going on. Not a good day. Then I told you of
the guy that did low high speed passes in his areobatic plane
interfering with other traffic. Well, he got killed doing low aerobatics
over a marina. The city enacted the ordinance. Like I said before, the
city attorney is a pilot. Missed approaches and balked landings would
not exceed the limits of the definition.

Ross

Judah wrote:

Jose wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:


What agreement?

This one:


We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...