Buzzed?

In a previous article, Jose said:
Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally

What agreement?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
About Windows XP, seen in Forbes Magazine ..
"...the world's richest Chief Software Architect continues a record for
design elegance unmatched since the Yugo."

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

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:
Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction
of the FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but
it'll never fly (pardon the pun) in court.


If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

No, because it is 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.

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

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

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.