Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are recruitment agent's unsolicited terms binding?
596 views
Skip to first unread message
Caecilius
Jan 29, 2013, 1:15:01 PM1/29/13
to
I run a small UK limited company in a fairly small market sector. I
often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
(normally around 20% of first year's salary);
I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
universities.
Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
because replying will confirm that I read the email.
Any case law would be useful. At the moment, these CVs are effectively
blacklisting candidates because I'm worried that the agent will come
after me if I approach them.
often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
(normally around 20% of first year's salary);
I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
universities.
Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
because replying will confirm that I read the email.
Any case law would be useful. At the moment, these CVs are effectively
blacklisting candidates because I'm worried that the agent will come
after me if I approach them.
D.M. Procida
Jan 29, 2013, 2:20:09 PM1/29/13
to
Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote:
> I run a small UK limited company in a fairly small market sector. I
> often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
> email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
> agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
> If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
> (normally around 20% of first year's salary);
>
> I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
> directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
> these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
> universities.
>
> Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
> and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
> saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
> because replying will confirm that I read the email.
I don't see how this could possibly be binding on you. They might as
> I run a small UK limited company in a fairly small market sector. I
> often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
> email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
> agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
> If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
> (normally around 20% of first year's salary);
>
> I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
> directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
> these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
> universities.
>
> Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
> and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
> saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
> because replying will confirm that I read the email.
well be driving past your office shouting out the information through
loudspeakers.
Daniele
Message has been deleted
Mark Goodge
Jan 29, 2013, 2:00:05 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:15:01 +0000, Caecilius put finger to keyboard and
typed:
They would only be binding if it could be shown that the agency was, in
fact, responsible for introducing the candidate to you and that you would
not have employed him or her had that not been the case.
As a civil case, that would be on the balance of probabilities, so the
judge would need to decide whether it was more likely or not that you had
only found out about the candidate via the agency. The easiest way to
persuade him that it wasn't would be to show that the candidate came from a
pool in which you are already fishing, so to speak, or that the candidate
approached you directly independently of the agency.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
fact, responsible for introducing the candidate to you and that you would
not have employed him or her had that not been the case.
As a civil case, that would be on the balance of probabilities, so the
judge would need to decide whether it was more likely or not that you had
only found out about the candidate via the agency. The easiest way to
persuade him that it wasn't would be to show that the candidate came from a
pool in which you are already fishing, so to speak, or that the candidate
approached you directly independently of the agency.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Sam Plusnet
Jan 29, 2013, 3:15:01 PM1/29/13
to
In article <87d2wn4...@news2.kororaa.com>, aug...@kororaa.com
says...
> (Becasue, if you can, you
> now owe me £100,000 for reading this.)
>
Yes, but would you accept cash?
--
Sam
says...
> (Becasue, if you can, you
> now owe me £100,000 for reading this.)
>
Yes, but would you accept cash?
--
Sam
Caecilius
Jan 29, 2013, 3:20:01 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:45:02 +0000, August West <aug...@kororaa.com>
wrote:
>That's certainly the attitude I took when I was recruiting engineers.
>Becasue, as the agents were careful never to supply me with contact
>details for "their" candidates. So I must have obtained them in some
>other way. So was no way they could ever claim I used the information
>they provided to contact and employ anyone they put forward.
I get those anonymised "candidate 1234" ones as well, but I'm not
concerned about those. As you say, there's not enough information to
identify the candidate, so they're safe.
But the ones I'm talking about have full contact details, so it could
be argued this is how I found out about the candidate.
>And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you can't
>unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if you can, you
don't think it's quite like that. These terms are saying "if you
choose to do xxx, then you'll owe me £££". Isn't that a like the "your
car will be clamped, £££ for release" notices, where if you can be
shown to have seen the notice and have taken the action, then you can
be liable?
wrote:
>That's certainly the attitude I took when I was recruiting engineers.
>Becasue, as the agents were careful never to supply me with contact
>details for "their" candidates. So I must have obtained them in some
>other way. So was no way they could ever claim I used the information
>they provided to contact and employ anyone they put forward.
I get those anonymised "candidate 1234" ones as well, but I'm not
concerned about those. As you say, there's not enough information to
identify the candidate, so they're safe.
But the ones I'm talking about have full contact details, so it could
be argued this is how I found out about the candidate.
>And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you can't
>unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if you can, you
>now owe me £100,000 for reading this.)
I agree the "if you read this, you owe me £££" isn't enforcable, but I
don't think it's quite like that. These terms are saying "if you
choose to do xxx, then you'll owe me £££". Isn't that a like the "your
car will be clamped, £££ for release" notices, where if you can be
shown to have seen the notice and have taken the action, then you can
be liable?
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jan 29, 2013, 4:15:02 PM1/29/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you
> can't unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if
> you can, you now owe me �100,000 for reading this.)
>
> They're just trying it on.
> And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you
> can't unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if
> you can, you now owe me �100,000 for reading this.)
>
They are trying to get OP to form a unilateral contract: They propose
terms, and someone else accepts by performance rather than agreement.
As long as OP doesn't use information in the email to hire
candidates, he should be ok. If there is identifying information in
there or the attachments, he should make a practice of deleting them
without reading them, so that he can testify to doing so if he is
ever questioned.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jan 29, 2013, 4:25:02 PM1/29/13
to
Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote:
> I agree the "if you read this, you owe me ���" isn't enforcable,
> but I don't think it's quite like that. These terms are saying
> "if you choose to do xxx, then you'll owe me ���". Isn't that a
> like the "your car will be clamped, ��� for release" notices,
> where if you can be shown to have seen the notice and have taken
> the action, then you can be liable?
Sort of. It's like saying, "if you do something that results in your
> I agree the "if you read this, you owe me ���" isn't enforcable,
> but I don't think it's quite like that. These terms are saying
> "if you choose to do xxx, then you'll owe me ���". Isn't that a
> like the "your car will be clamped, ��� for release" notices,
> where if you can be shown to have seen the notice and have taken
> the action, then you can be liable?
getting a benefit, then you owe me." So don't read them, put the
sender in your spam file. If they sue you will have a good defense
(though the judge will have to believe you).
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
Jan 29, 2013, 4:40:02 PM1/29/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
> news:XnsA15785F61A29Cs...@130.133.4.11...
unambiguously constitutes acceptance. that need not be much, but I don't
think you can impose conditions on information you send someone unsolicited.
It could be different if there has been some previous course of dealings, or
a sign-up to a mailing list. If, without ever having accepted the terms of
formed a contract with the agency, or having solicited the information or
represented that you would pay agency fees, yyouwere to respond, "We reject
your terms and do not wish to contract with you", i can't see that you would
not be free to use whatever they sent you, subject to data protection
requirements.
The agency also has a problem with showing consideration. By the time of the
acceptance, the consideration is past.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jan 29, 2013, 6:35:02 PM1/29/13
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
>> They are trying to get OP to form a unilateral contract: They
>> propose terms, and someone else accepts by performance rather
>> than agreement.
>>
>> As long as OP doesn't use information in the email to hire
>> candidates, he should be ok. If there is identifying
>> information in there or the attachments, he should make a
>> practice of deleting them without reading them, so that he can
>> testify to doing so if he is ever questioned.
>>
> Surely it needs a little more than that. They will need
> something that unambiguously constitutes acceptance. that need
> not be much, but I don't think you can impose conditions on
> information you send someone unsolicited. It could be different
> if there has been some previous course of dealings, or a sign-up
> to a mailing list. If, without ever having accepted the terms of
> formed a contract with the agency, or having solicited the
> information or represented that you would pay agency fees,
> yyouwere to respond, "We reject your terms and do not wish to
> contract with you", i can't see that you would not be free to
> use whatever they sent you, subject to data protection
> requirements.
If it is indeed a unilateral contract, that's really all that is
needed. However, after looking into it, this looks like but
doesn't exactly fit the definition of a unilateral contract.
Here is a quote from Schweppe and Harper, [2008] EWCA Civ 442:
"In the case of a unilateral contract , the promise clearly
provides consideration if he completes the stipulated act or
forbearance (such as walking to York, or not smoking for a year).
This amounts in law to a detriment to the promisee; and the
promisor may also obtain a benefit: e.g. where he promises a reward
for the return of lost property and it is actually returned to him.
It was suggested in Chapter 2 that commencement of performance can
amount to acceptance of an offer of a unilateral contract , and it
is submitted that such commencement can also amount to
consideration; for it may in law be a detriment to the promise to
walk only part of the way to York or to refrain from smoking for
part of the year. Difficult questions of fact may, indeed, arise in
determining whether performance has actually begun and whether such
a beginning was made "on the strength of" a promise. This is
particularly true where the stipulated performance was a
forbearance; but if an actual forbearance to sue can constitute
good consideration, it must in principle be possible to tell when a
forbearance has begun. Thus commencement of performance (whether of
an act or of a forbearance) may provide both an acceptance and
consideration and may accordingly deprive the promisor of his right
to withdraw the promise. Of course, the promisor's liability to pay
the amount promised (e.g. the �100 for walking to York) does not
accrue before the promise has fully performed the required act or
forbearance. The present point is merely that, after part
performance by the promise, the promisor cannot withdraw with
impunity."
> The agency also has a problem with showing consideration. By the
> time of the acceptance, the consideration is past.
If it qualifies as a unilateral contract, the acceptance is the
consideration.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
>> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
>> They are trying to get OP to form a unilateral contract: They
>> propose terms, and someone else accepts by performance rather
>> than agreement.
>>
>> As long as OP doesn't use information in the email to hire
>> candidates, he should be ok. If there is identifying
>> information in there or the attachments, he should make a
>> practice of deleting them without reading them, so that he can
>> testify to doing so if he is ever questioned.
>>
> Surely it needs a little more than that. They will need
> something that unambiguously constitutes acceptance. that need
> not be much, but I don't think you can impose conditions on
> information you send someone unsolicited. It could be different
> if there has been some previous course of dealings, or a sign-up
> to a mailing list. If, without ever having accepted the terms of
> formed a contract with the agency, or having solicited the
> information or represented that you would pay agency fees,
> yyouwere to respond, "We reject your terms and do not wish to
> contract with you", i can't see that you would not be free to
> use whatever they sent you, subject to data protection
> requirements.
needed. However, after looking into it, this looks like but
doesn't exactly fit the definition of a unilateral contract.
Here is a quote from Schweppe and Harper, [2008] EWCA Civ 442:
"In the case of a unilateral contract , the promise clearly
provides consideration if he completes the stipulated act or
forbearance (such as walking to York, or not smoking for a year).
This amounts in law to a detriment to the promisee; and the
promisor may also obtain a benefit: e.g. where he promises a reward
for the return of lost property and it is actually returned to him.
It was suggested in Chapter 2 that commencement of performance can
amount to acceptance of an offer of a unilateral contract , and it
is submitted that such commencement can also amount to
consideration; for it may in law be a detriment to the promise to
walk only part of the way to York or to refrain from smoking for
part of the year. Difficult questions of fact may, indeed, arise in
determining whether performance has actually begun and whether such
a beginning was made "on the strength of" a promise. This is
particularly true where the stipulated performance was a
forbearance; but if an actual forbearance to sue can constitute
good consideration, it must in principle be possible to tell when a
forbearance has begun. Thus commencement of performance (whether of
an act or of a forbearance) may provide both an acceptance and
consideration and may accordingly deprive the promisor of his right
to withdraw the promise. Of course, the promisor's liability to pay
the amount promised (e.g. the �100 for walking to York) does not
accrue before the promise has fully performed the required act or
forbearance. The present point is merely that, after part
performance by the promise, the promisor cannot withdraw with
impunity."
> The agency also has a problem with showing consideration. By the
> time of the acceptance, the consideration is past.
consideration.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Syd Rumpo
Jan 29, 2013, 6:10:02 PM1/29/13
to
On 29/01/2013 21:25, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I agree the "if you read this, you owe me œœœ" isn't enforcable,
> Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote:
>
>> but I don't think it's quite like that. These terms are saying
>> "if you choose to do xxx, then you'll owe me œœœ". Isn't that a
>> like the "your car will be clamped, œœœ for release" notices,
>> where if you can be shown to have seen the notice and have taken
>> the action, then you can be liable?
>
> Sort of. It's like saying, "if you do something that results in your
> getting a benefit, then you owe me." So don't read them, put the
> sender in your spam file. If they sue you will have a good defense
> (though the judge will have to believe you).
I got a job once where I'd seen an advert on a recruiter's website.
>> the action, then you can be liable?
>
> Sort of. It's like saying, "if you do something that results in your
> getting a benefit, then you owe me." So don't read them, put the
> sender in your spam file. If they sue you will have a good defense
> (though the judge will have to believe you).
They didn't specify the company, but enough details about the work were
given such that I could take a reasonable stab at Google to find the
company. I did, and they had the vacancy advertised on their website.
I applied via the company's website contact details and got the job.
The company didn't know this. I gained advantage from the recruiter,
but they are all scumbags anyway.
Will I be sent down? Will I get conjugal rights?
Yours in anticipation,
--
Syd
Chris R
Jan 30, 2013, 4:05:02 AM1/30/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
>
> >> They are trying to get OP to form a unilateral contract: They
> >> propose terms, and someone else accepts by performance rather
> >> than agreement.
> >>
> >> As long as OP doesn't use information in the email to hire
> >> candidates, he should be ok. If there is identifying
> >> information in there or the attachments, he should make a
> >> practice of deleting them without reading them, so that he can
> >> testify to doing so if he is ever questioned.
> >>
> > Surely it needs a little more than that. They will need
> > something that unambiguously constitutes acceptance. that need
> > not be much, but I don't think you can impose conditions on
> > information you send someone unsolicited. It could be different
> > if there has been some previous course of dealings, or a sign-up
> > to a mailing list. If, without ever having accepted the terms of
> > formed a contract with the agency, or having solicited the
> > information or represented that you would pay agency fees,
> > your were to respond, "We reject your terms and do not wish to
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
>
> >> They are trying to get OP to form a unilateral contract: They
> >> propose terms, and someone else accepts by performance rather
> >> than agreement.
> >>
> >> As long as OP doesn't use information in the email to hire
> >> candidates, he should be ok. If there is identifying
> >> information in there or the attachments, he should make a
> >> practice of deleting them without reading them, so that he can
> >> testify to doing so if he is ever questioned.
> >>
> > Surely it needs a little more than that. They will need
> > something that unambiguously constitutes acceptance. that need
> > not be much, but I don't think you can impose conditions on
> > information you send someone unsolicited. It could be different
> > if there has been some previous course of dealings, or a sign-up
> > to a mailing list. If, without ever having accepted the terms of
> > formed a contract with the agency, or having solicited the
> > information or represented that you would pay agency fees,
fulfilled if the offeree completes his part. It doesn't work the other way
round. Here, the situation is more akin to someone saying, "if you walk to
York you must pay me £100 (and here's a map of how to get there)." There is
no promise by the offeror, and any consideration moving from him is past
(the provision of the map, which he has already done pre-contract so it
cannot be good consideration).
Have more complicated unilateral contracts been tested? What if I say i will
pay you £100 if you walk to York, and thereafter you must walk to York every
month for 10 years? If you do walk to York in reliance on my promise, are
you then bound by the small print obligations?
>
> > The agency also has a problem with showing consideration. By the
> > time of the acceptance, the consideration is past.
>
> If it qualifies as a unilateral contract, the acceptance is the
> consideration.
>
I'm talking about the consideration moving from the agency, not from the
> > The agency also has a problem with showing consideration. By the
> > time of the acceptance, the consideration is past.
>
> If it qualifies as a unilateral contract, the acceptance is the
> consideration.
>
client.
Remember that the doctrine of consideration is still applied strictly in
England, unlike in most US states.
Paul Rudin
Jan 30, 2013, 4:45:02 AM1/30/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:
> And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you can't
> unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if you can, you
> now owe me £100,000 for reading this.)
Right.
> And that's in adition to the basic law of contract that you can't
> unilaterally impose obligations on someone. (Becasue, if you can, you
> now owe me £100,000 for reading this.)
Although a related situation is that a unilateral offer can be accepted
by performance without a need to agree to the contract first. "Find my
lost dog and I'll give you £10". If you find the dog you can enforce
payment of the £10.
Message has been deleted
Bob
Jan 30, 2013, 5:50:02 AM1/30/13
to
I can't answer to the question of case law, but the recruitment company I
used to work for a recruitment would often receive responses along the lines
of "all unsolicited emails from recruitment companies, with or without
attachments, will be deleted unread. CVs will not be read and will not be
retained." IT always seemed to do the trick - my employer would give up and
move on.
The Todal
Jan 30, 2013, 6:15:02 AM1/30/13
to
address, and to obtain that information you would have to contact the
agency and sign up to its terms.
I feel sure that the terms are not binding on you unless you either sign
a document or at least send an email saying you agree to the terms.
tim.....
Jan 30, 2013, 6:55:02 AM1/30/13
to
"Caecilius" <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote in message
news:c93gg8ha1filru2kr...@4ax.com...
> I run a small UK limited company in a fairly small market sector. I
> often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
> email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
> agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
> If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
> (normally around 20% of first year's salary);
>
> I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
> directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
> these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
> universities.
The usual way that agents make sure about this is to send out CV without
> often get unsolicited CVs from recruitment agents, often to general
> email addresses like sa...@my-company.com. These CVs come with the
> agent's standard terms and conditions, which invariably boil down to:
> If you employ this candidate within one year, you need to pay us a fee
> (normally around 20% of first year's salary);
>
> I object to this, because often the candidate may have found me
> directly, or I may have found them. It's a small industry, and many of
> these candidates are graduates, and I'm in contact with many of the
> universities.
names and addresses.
So if you want to interview candidate 31784 you have to contact them
tim
AnthonyL
Jan 30, 2013, 7:45:02 AM1/30/13
to
of the candidates they need to be wary of planted seeds. What would
the situation then be?
--
AnthonyL
Chris R
Jan 30, 2013, 8:35:01 AM1/30/13
to
>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51091565...@news.zen.co.uk...
unless there is a contract?
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Jan 30, 2013, 10:35:01 AM1/30/13
to
In message <Zv6dnW6IY7PRvJTM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
13:35:01 on Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
stopping here you agree to pay us £80 if you stay more than 3hrs". ie
"By contacting this person you agree to pay us a fee if you employ him".
--
Roland Perry
13:35:01 on Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>> And of course if the recipient is going to surreptitiously contact any
>> of the candidates they need to be wary of planted seeds. What would
>> the situation then be?
>>
>It surely cannot matter whether the employment flowed from the introduction
>unless there is a contract?
It's conceptually (rather than legally) very similar to car parking "by
>> of the candidates they need to be wary of planted seeds. What would
>> the situation then be?
>>
>It surely cannot matter whether the employment flowed from the introduction
>unless there is a contract?
stopping here you agree to pay us £80 if you stay more than 3hrs". ie
"By contacting this person you agree to pay us a fee if you employ him".
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Jan 30, 2013, 9:45:02 AM1/30/13
to
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jan 30, 2013, 12:40:02 PM1/30/13
to
> Yes, but in unilateral contracts there is a promise by the
> offeror, to be fulfilled if the offeree completes his part. It
> doesn't work the other way round. Here, the situation is more
> akin to someone saying, "if you walk to York you must pay me
> £100 (and here's a map of how to get there)." There is no
> promise by the offeror, and any consideration moving from him is
> past (the provision of the map, which he has already done
> pre-contract so it cannot be good consideration).
Yes, that's why I re-thought the idea of whether or not this might
> offeror, to be fulfilled if the offeree completes his part. It
> doesn't work the other way round. Here, the situation is more
> akin to someone saying, "if you walk to York you must pay me
> £100 (and here's a map of how to get there)." There is no
> promise by the offeror, and any consideration moving from him is
> past (the provision of the map, which he has already done
> pre-contract so it cannot be good consideration).
constitute a unilateral contract. I haven't done more research on
it, but it may well not just for that reason.
> Remember that the doctrine of consideration is still applied
> strictly in England, unlike in most US states.
most contracts, unless there are equitable reasons (equitable
estopple for example) that would make it unfair not to. I don't
know the rules in the other states, but my guess is that they are
not very different in this regard.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Sara
Jan 31, 2013, 1:20:03 AM1/31/13
to
In article
<2068443834381245771.979979%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.o
rg>,
And the applicant will have contacted the agency about a job which turns
out not to exist.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
<2068443834381245771.979979%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.o
rg>,
out not to exist.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
R. Mark Clayton
Jan 30, 2013, 6:45:02 PM1/30/13
to
"Caecilius" <nos...@spamless.invalid> wrote in message
news:c93gg8ha1filru2kr...@4ax.com...
contact the candidate using their details.
Chris R
Jan 31, 2013, 2:55:01 AM1/31/13
to
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> news:aLKdnSOVBcLXMpTM...@bt.com...
provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual offer?
Lobster
Jan 31, 2013, 3:10:01 AM1/31/13
to
On 29/01/2013 18:15, Caecilius wrote:
> Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
> and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
> saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
> because replying will confirm that I read the email.
Surely the point is that they are unsolicited and the OP has no contract
> Does anyone know whether unsolicited messages like this are binding,
> and what's the best way to deal with them? I wonder if I should reply
> saying I'm not interested, or whether it's better to ignore them
> because replying will confirm that I read the email.
with them.
Take an analogy with selling a house through an estate agent... as
everyone knows, if an agent takes on your house, then even if you sell
your house to someone who wasn't introduced by the agent then the
agent's T&Cs will still demand their cut and as far as I know it's
standard that they do get paid (BTDTGTTS).
Now, imagine sets up a new website and adds every for-sale house that
they can find; then they email the owner and tell him that if/when his
house sells he then owes the website a £100 fee. Nobody would even
consider paying that, and no court would sanction it either - I don't
see the OP's situation as being any different.
--
David
Roland Perry
Jan 31, 2013, 4:50:02 AM1/31/13
to
In message <FDpOs.3309$I92....@fx13.fr7>, at 08:10:01 on Thu, 31 Jan
2013, Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> remarked:
no sale to someone who made an offer through their office, then no fee
is payable. Otherwise how does multiple agency work, or when you
transfer sole agency to a new agent, and they re-introduce someone who
didn't make a successful offer earlier through a former agent
--
Roland Perry
2013, Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Take an analogy with selling a house through an estate agent... as
>everyone knows, if an agent takes on your house, then even if you sell
>your house to someone who wasn't introduced by the agent then the
>agent's T&Cs will still demand their cut and as far as I know it's
>standard that they do get paid (BTDTGTTS).
I thought most of them had moved to "no sale no fee". By which I mean,
>everyone knows, if an agent takes on your house, then even if you sell
>your house to someone who wasn't introduced by the agent then the
>agent's T&Cs will still demand their cut and as far as I know it's
>standard that they do get paid (BTDTGTTS).
no sale to someone who made an offer through their office, then no fee
is payable. Otherwise how does multiple agency work, or when you
transfer sole agency to a new agent, and they re-introduce someone who
didn't make a successful offer earlier through a former agent
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Jan 31, 2013, 5:05:02 AM1/31/13
to
with the agent. Some stipulate that commission is payable only if they
introduce a buyer who proceeds to exchange. Others, to protect
themselves from multiple agency arrangements, stipulate that the
commission is payable if any buyer is introduced by anyone.
So it is very unwise to register with other agents until you have
checked precisely what your obligations are to your existing agents.
Roland Perry
Jan 31, 2013, 5:55:02 AM1/31/13
to
In message <amutlq...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:02 on Thu, 31
Jan 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
an agent who was that keen on driving away all his potential customers
with clauses that prohibit multiple agency (perhaps after a short period
of exclusivity, and at a different commission rate).
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>You have to look at the specific terms and conditions in your contract
>with the agent. Some stipulate that commission is payable only if they
>introduce a buyer who proceeds to exchange. Others, to protect
>themselves from multiple agency arrangements, stipulate that the
>commission is payable if any buyer is introduced by anyone.
>
>So it is very unwise to register with other agents until you have
>checked precisely what your obligations are to your existing agents.
I agree, but having sold houses fairly regularly I've never come across
>with the agent. Some stipulate that commission is payable only if they
>introduce a buyer who proceeds to exchange. Others, to protect
>themselves from multiple agency arrangements, stipulate that the
>commission is payable if any buyer is introduced by anyone.
>
>So it is very unwise to register with other agents until you have
>checked precisely what your obligations are to your existing agents.
an agent who was that keen on driving away all his potential customers
with clauses that prohibit multiple agency (perhaps after a short period
of exclusivity, and at a different commission rate).
--
Roland Perry
polygonum
Jan 31, 2013, 6:00:02 AM1/31/13
to
case being discussed) has agreed to pay the estate agent under those
terms. Whereas it is, if I understand correctly, illegal for the
employment agency to charge the potential employee. It would be as if
the purchaser of a house was expected to pay some semi-random estate
agent for the privilege.
--
Rod
R. Mark Clayton
Jan 31, 2013, 10:25:01 AM1/31/13
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>>
>> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless you
>> contact the candidate using their details.
>>
> Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
> provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual offer?
Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by contacting and
>>
>> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless you
>> contact the candidate using their details.
>>
> Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
> provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual offer?
engaging a candidate using their details.
Unless they are very dumb then the CV's supplied should not easily allow you
to identify and contact individual candidates and you will have to go
through them.
> --
> Chris R
Chris R
Jan 31, 2013, 1:50:02 PM1/31/13
to
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless
> >> you
> >> contact the candidate using their details.
> >>
> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
> > offer?
>
> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by contacting and
> engaging a candidate using their details.
And that authority is?
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless
> >> you
> >> contact the candidate using their details.
> >>
> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
> > offer?
>
> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by contacting and
> engaging a candidate using their details.
Steve Firth
Jan 31, 2013, 2:50:02 PM1/31/13
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > At which time you find out that the CV was a work of fiction.
>
> And the applicant will have contacted the agency about a job which turns
> out not to exist.
Yes, and dragging the subject back on topic, it does seem to be a
> >
> > At which time you find out that the CV was a work of fiction.
>
> And the applicant will have contacted the agency about a job which turns
> out not to exist.
failing of the law that there is no offence of offering employment that
does not exist or of obtaining personal data by deceit. There is
something deeply wrong about an employment agency collecting personal
data, including sensitive customer records, simply to use as advertising
material.
--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground
Sam Plusnet
Feb 2, 2013, 8:30:03 PM2/2/13
to
In article <2XMEH+qX...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
regional thing.
In some regions sole agency was the norm, in others most houses were
offered via multiple agencies.
I'm not too sure what happened if you were on the boundary between two
such areas.
--
Sam
>
> I agree, but having sold houses fairly regularly I've never come
across
> an agent who was that keen on driving away all his potential customers
> with clauses that prohibit multiple agency (perhaps after a short period
> of exclusivity, and at a different commission rate).
It's many years since I sold or bought a house, but this used to be a
> I agree, but having sold houses fairly regularly I've never come
across
> an agent who was that keen on driving away all his potential customers
> with clauses that prohibit multiple agency (perhaps after a short period
> of exclusivity, and at a different commission rate).
regional thing.
In some regions sole agency was the norm, in others most houses were
offered via multiple agencies.
I'm not too sure what happened if you were on the boundary between two
such areas.
--
Sam
Roland Perry
Feb 3, 2013, 6:05:02 AM2/3/13
to
In message <MPG.2b77ccd67...@news.plus.net>, at 01:30:03 on
Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> remarked:
Nottingham. Unless their planning rules are different, not only must the
sign be on the actual property (not the fence outside) but there should
only be one agent at a time per property:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/64248091
(Maybe there were 13 flats available?)
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> remarked:
>In some regions sole agency was the norm, in others most houses were
>offered via multiple agencies.
Talking of multiple agencies, I'm reminded of this array of signs in
>offered via multiple agencies.
Nottingham. Unless their planning rules are different, not only must the
sign be on the actual property (not the fence outside) but there should
only be one agent at a time per property:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/64248091
(Maybe there were 13 flats available?)
--
Roland Perry
Andy Walker
Feb 3, 2013, 8:40:02 AM2/3/13
to
On 03/02/13 11:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> Talking of multiple agencies, I'm reminded of this array of signs in
> Nottingham. [...]
> Talking of multiple agencies, I'm reminded of this array of signs in
There was a similar, but more concentrated, array on a block
of flats near us. A few days ago, the array was taken down and put
on the ground behind the gate. I suppose it could just be vandals
or the simultaneous letting of lots of flats, but Nottingham has
been introducing bans on these signs in designated areas [eg Lenton,
where student lets are the norm], so with any luck they have become
designated. Yay!
Now we just need the residents to keep their gate [which is
very heavy, metal and opens out across most of the pavement] closed.
As well as regularly closing it in order to walk past, I'm tempted
to padlock it; luckily I'm too law-abiding to act on the temptation.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
R. Mark Clayton
Feb 3, 2013, 12:00:10 PM2/3/13
to
news:urWdndiwLKcoIZfM...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>>
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless
>> >> you
>> >> contact the candidate using their details.
>> >>
>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
>> > offer?
>>
>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by contacting
>> and
>> engaging a candidate using their details.
>
> And that authority is?
Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>>
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract unless
>> >> you
>> >> contact the candidate using their details.
>> >>
>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
>> > offer?
>>
>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by contacting
>> and
>> engaging a candidate using their details.
>
> And that authority is?
Message has been deleted
Chris R
Feb 3, 2013, 2:20:09 PM2/3/13
to
>
>
> "August West" wrote in message news:877gmp1...@news2.kororaa.com...
>
>
> The entity calling itself R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >
> > "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:urWdndiwLKcoIZfM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>
> >>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> >>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
> >>>
> >>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract
> >>> >> unless you contact the candidate using their details.
> >>> >>
> >>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the
> >>> > information
> >>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
> >>> > offer?
> >>>
> >>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by
> >>> contacting and engaging a candidate using their details.
> >>
> >> And that authority is?
> >
> > Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was the
>
> The entity calling itself R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >
> > "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:urWdndiwLKcoIZfM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>
> >>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> >>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
> >>>
> >>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract
> >>> >> unless you contact the candidate using their details.
> >>> >>
> >>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the
> >>> > information
> >>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
> >>> > offer?
> >>>
> >>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by
> >>> contacting and engaging a candidate using their details.
> >>
> >> And that authority is?
> >
> > Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
> revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I will pay you
> [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the suplied information]
> and you will pay me". So I don't think it's clear that it applies.
>
Indeed, and again as pointed out up-thread, there is a complete absence of
good consideration moving from the agency.
R. Mark Clayton
Feb 3, 2013, 1:55:01 PM2/3/13
to
"August West" <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote in message
news:877gmp1...@news2.kororaa.com...
>
> The entity calling itself R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>
> The entity calling itself R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:urWdndiwLKcoIZfM...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>>>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract
>>>> >> unless you contact the candidate using their details.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
>>>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
>>>> > offer?
>>>>
>>>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by
>>>> contacting and engaging a candidate using their details.
>>>
>>> And that authority is?
>>
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
>> news:urWdndiwLKcoIZfM...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>>>> news:75ednQK5jbBeEZfM...@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1IGdnVPMuMVwv5fM...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Unless you have engaged them there is no agreement to contract
>>>> >> unless you contact the candidate using their details.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Is there any authority for the proposition that using the information
>>>> > provided by the agency constitutes acceptance of their contractual
>>>> > offer?
>>>>
>>>> Yes they can write in their offer that you may accept it by
>>>> contacting and engaging a candidate using their details.
>>>
>>> And that authority is?
>>
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was the
> revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I will pay you
> [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the suplied information]
> and you will pay me". So I don't think it's clear that it applies.
It is analagous. They make the offer, you accept it (actions of the
> revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I will pay you
> [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the suplied information]
> and you will pay me". So I don't think it's clear that it applies.
parties) by using the information. They might have difficulty proving offer
and acceptance if you had some other way of contacting the candidate and
there was no other signs of agreement (e.g. exchange of emails).
An honesty box is similar - e.g. a farm selling logs at a �1 a sack with a
box to put the money in.
>
> --
> I'm not cynical. Just experienced.
Chris R
Feb 3, 2013, 3:05:02 PM2/3/13
to
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
contracts being a limited exception. If someone sends me unsolicited
information and attempts to impose conditions about payment if I use it, I
don't see my use of it as unambiguous evidence of acceptance of his offer,
any more than if he had put the information on a billboard, or on his
website. You also have to overcome the problem of past consideration.
>
> An honesty box is similar - e.g. a farm selling logs at a �1 a sack with a
> box to put the money in.
>
No, because there title to goods is involved. If you don't pay, you clearly
> An honesty box is similar - e.g. a farm selling logs at a �1 a sack with a
> box to put the money in.
>
don't own the goods, and taking them without payment would be theft. (waits
for response saying person who honestly believes he is entitled to ignore
the honesty box is not dishonest).
Percy Picacity
Feb 3, 2013, 4:30:03 PM2/3/13
to
agency, and mention the number in the email. Is this still public
information, or are you clearly using their services if you call the
candidate on that number?
--
Percy Picacity
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 5:45:02 PM2/3/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>> And that authority is?
>>
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I
> will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the
> suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't think it's
> clear that it applies.
Perhaps but not exactly. In Carlill it was "do something and I will
>>> And that authority is?
>>
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>
> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I
> will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the
> suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't think it's
> clear that it applies.
pay you." In OP's situation it is "here is your consideration. Use
it and then you will owe me." In one case it is a promise given in
exchange for consideration that forms the contract. In the other it
is consideration given in exchange for consideration.
While there certainly is a distinction, I don't see it as
significant.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Message has been deleted
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 6:30:02 PM2/3/13
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>>
>> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
>> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I
>> will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the
>> suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't think
>> it's clear that it applies.
>>
> Indeed, and again as pointed out up-thread, there is a complete
> absence of good consideration moving from the agency.
If the agency actually presents a qualified candidate that the
>> > Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>>
>> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
>> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I
>> will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the
>> suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't think
>> it's clear that it applies.
>>
> Indeed, and again as pointed out up-thread, there is a complete
> absence of good consideration moving from the agency.
company wasn't aware of before and couldn't have easily found, it
seems to me that would be sufficient consideration. On the other
hand if the actual identity and contact information for the candidate
weren't included in the solicitation, that would be worth far less
than a peppercorn.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 7:30:02 PM2/3/13
to
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Suppose they lend the candidate a mobile telephone belonging to
> the agency, and mention the number in the email. Is this still
> public information, or are you clearly using their services if
> you call the candidate on that number?
My guess is that if you give them the ability to contact the
> Suppose they lend the candidate a mobile telephone belonging to
> the agency, and mention the number in the email. Is this still
> public information, or are you clearly using their services if
> you call the candidate on that number?
applicant directly, and you you contact the applicant in that manner
based on the email they sent, that would be sufficient to form a
contract.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 7:40:01 PM2/3/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> understanding of the doctrine of consideration (we totally lack
> it in Scots Law).
Consideration just means something of value (even if small value)
in exchange.
How are contracts formed under Scots law? Is a bare promise alone
enforceable without anything else?
> So, if I send you a map of the location of LAX Airport, and tell
> you that if you ever visit LAX airport then you owe me $300,
> that creates a binding obligation if you ever visit the airport?
> If not, why not?
It's similar but not the same. In OP's case he is being given
information he presumably didn't know about before and might not be
able to easily find on his own. If the recipient of the email had
already known of the solicited candidate, or the candidate
contacted the employer directly, then there would be no
consideration. But if the information were something he could use
that he didn't have ready access to before, it might amount to
consideration.
In the case of LAX, I know where it is or can easily find out if I
need to without resort to your email. But if the occasion arises
and I go to your email for information rather than going to google
maps, I may well owe you money.
I suppose the idea of consideration can be vexing, because many
contested situations involve the of whether or not consideration
was given for a promise. But that's the way the law developed.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
>>> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and
>>> I will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use
>>> the suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't
>>> think it's clear that it applies.
>>
>>>
>>> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was
>>> the revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and
>>> I will pay you [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use
>>> the suplied information] and you will pay me". So I don't
>>> think it's clear that it applies.
>>
>> Perhaps but not exactly. In Carlill it was "do something and I
>> will pay you." In OP's situation it is "here is your
>> consideration. Use it and then you will owe me." In one case
>> it is a promise given in exchange for consideration that forms
>> the contract. In the other it is consideration given in
>> exchange for consideration.
>
> I can't pretend to understand your analysis, as I have no real
>> will pay you." In OP's situation it is "here is your
>> consideration. Use it and then you will owe me." In one case
>> it is a promise given in exchange for consideration that forms
>> the contract. In the other it is consideration given in
>> exchange for consideration.
>
> understanding of the doctrine of consideration (we totally lack
> it in Scots Law).
Consideration just means something of value (even if small value)
in exchange.
How are contracts formed under Scots law? Is a bare promise alone
enforceable without anything else?
> So, if I send you a map of the location of LAX Airport, and tell
> you that if you ever visit LAX airport then you owe me $300,
> that creates a binding obligation if you ever visit the airport?
> If not, why not?
It's similar but not the same. In OP's case he is being given
information he presumably didn't know about before and might not be
able to easily find on his own. If the recipient of the email had
already known of the solicited candidate, or the candidate
contacted the employer directly, then there would be no
consideration. But if the information were something he could use
that he didn't have ready access to before, it might amount to
consideration.
In the case of LAX, I know where it is or can easily find out if I
need to without resort to your email. But if the occasion arises
and I go to your email for information rather than going to google
maps, I may well owe you money.
I suppose the idea of consideration can be vexing, because many
contested situations involve the of whether or not consideration
was given for a promise. But that's the way the law developed.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Jon Ribbens
Feb 3, 2013, 9:05:02 PM2/3/13
to
On 2013-02-03, Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> Perhaps but not exactly. In Carlill it was "do something and I will
> pay you." In OP's situation it is "here is your consideration. Use
> it and then you will owe me." In one case it is a promise given in
> exchange for consideration that forms the contract. In the other it
> is consideration given in exchange for consideration.
"Past consideration is no consideration." Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669
> Perhaps but not exactly. In Carlill it was "do something and I will
> pay you." In OP's situation it is "here is your consideration. Use
> it and then you will owe me." In one case it is a promise given in
> exchange for consideration that forms the contract. In the other it
> is consideration given in exchange for consideration.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 9:15:04 PM2/3/13
to
past consideration. If by law it is a gift, then it's not
consideration at all. But if the email says, in effect, open the
attached document and you will find contact information for a
fabulous candidate that you aren't aware of and wouldn't easily be
made aware of," that strikes me as the kind of consideration that
would qualify for a unilateral contract.
Of course, judges don't always agree with me, and that could well
be true in this case.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Message has been deleted
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2013, 11:30:04 PM2/3/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
Thanks, that's good to know. I recently had occasion to read
through the Swiss code dealing with commercial contracts, and
didn't realize that might be the case. Of course I wasn't looking
for that issue, either.
A few years ago I helped negotiate the dissolution of a small
company based in Scotland. The Scotish solicitor representing the
other side was extraordinarily professional, and clearly had the
best interests of his client (rather than his own pockets) as his
priority.
While everything worked out satisfactorily (or equally
unsatisfactorily) for all parties, if I had been aware of that
rule, I might have approached things slightly differently.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> The entity calling itself Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>
>> How are contracts formed under Scots law?
>
> Consensus ad idem. That's all that's needed.
>>
>> How are contracts formed under Scots law?
>
>
>> Is a bare promise alone enforceable without anything else?
>
> Absolutely. Like almost every other Civil Law jurisdiction.
>> Is a bare promise alone enforceable without anything else?
>
Thanks, that's good to know. I recently had occasion to read
through the Swiss code dealing with commercial contracts, and
didn't realize that might be the case. Of course I wasn't looking
for that issue, either.
A few years ago I helped negotiate the dissolution of a small
company based in Scotland. The Scotish solicitor representing the
other side was extraordinarily professional, and clearly had the
best interests of his client (rather than his own pockets) as his
priority.
While everything worked out satisfactorily (or equally
unsatisfactorily) for all parties, if I had been aware of that
rule, I might have approached things slightly differently.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
Feb 4, 2013, 3:30:02 AM2/4/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
> news:XnsA15CB907A9C20s...@130.133.4.11...
consideration, and cannot be good consideration for the alleged
contract.Both parties must have obligations under the terms of the contract,
and anything you have already done is not an obligation.
Chris R
Feb 4, 2013, 3:40:02 AM2/4/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
requirements for unambiguous acceptance, and communication of the
acceptance. Regarding the former, the conduct in contacting the candidate
would have to be such as it demonstrated the intention to be bound by the
contract. It's more likely to demonstrate the opposite: the employer decided
not to have anything to do with the agency and contacted the candidate
direct. Information is not a form of property, and you cannot take it back
if it isn't paid for, unlike goods or intellectual property.
Let's take another example: the TV series Heir Hunters follows probate
research companies as they attempt to trace the heirs of an intestate
deceased. When they find one, they ask them to sign a contract that gives
the company its fee. But when they approach the heir about the death of an
unspecified relative, the potential client could well say "that must be
great-auntie Flo" and go and claim the inheritance without paying anything
to the company. I don't see that they could do anything about that.
Ian Jackson
Feb 4, 2013, 7:50:09 AM2/4/13
to
In article <GMSdnU3EB9WML5PM...@bt.com>,
isn't entitled to commit otherwise ?
It seems to me that this is the key difference between most of the
other situations where a contract is accepted by conduct and the sham
"contracts" in this employment agency case and other hypothetical
situations.
For the avoidance of doubt I'm talking about a scenario where the
agency sends the CV unsolicited to the prospective employer, and the
agency's communication provides enough (perhaps unintentionally so)
information that the employer can search for and find the candidate
and contact them directly.
I'm not talking about the scenario where the agency's initial contact
doesn't give enough information for a search to locate the candidate.
In that case the agency will offer to provide the additional
information but only after the employer signs up to the contract, and
I think then the contract would be binding.
I imagine that agencies try quite hard to put themselves in the latter
rather than the former situation, but they may well include legally
unenforceable wording in the unsolicited letter which is intended to
discourage an employer from seeing if they can find the candidate
anyway - witness another poster to this thread whose company policy
was to throw these away unread.
>An honesty box is similar - e.g. a farm selling logs at a �1 a sack with a
>box to put the money in.
The difference is that I'm not legally entitled to simply take a log
and not pay for it. That would be a tort at the very least and
probably theft.
Whereas using the unsolicited information provided by the agency to
search for and find the candidate, contact them, and eventually hire
them, would be perfectly lawful even without the agency's permission.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>It is analagous. They make the offer, you accept it (actions of the
>parties) by using the information.
Surely the acceptance by conduct has to be by acts which the party
>It is analagous. They make the offer, you accept it (actions of the
>parties) by using the information.
isn't entitled to commit otherwise ?
It seems to me that this is the key difference between most of the
other situations where a contract is accepted by conduct and the sham
"contracts" in this employment agency case and other hypothetical
situations.
For the avoidance of doubt I'm talking about a scenario where the
agency sends the CV unsolicited to the prospective employer, and the
agency's communication provides enough (perhaps unintentionally so)
information that the employer can search for and find the candidate
and contact them directly.
I'm not talking about the scenario where the agency's initial contact
doesn't give enough information for a search to locate the candidate.
In that case the agency will offer to provide the additional
information but only after the employer signs up to the contract, and
I think then the contract would be binding.
I imagine that agencies try quite hard to put themselves in the latter
rather than the former situation, but they may well include legally
unenforceable wording in the unsolicited letter which is intended to
discourage an employer from seeing if they can find the candidate
anyway - witness another poster to this thread whose company policy
was to throw these away unread.
>An honesty box is similar - e.g. a farm selling logs at a �1 a sack with a
>box to put the money in.
and not pay for it. That would be a tort at the very least and
probably theft.
Whereas using the unsolicited information provided by the agency to
search for and find the candidate, contact them, and eventually hire
them, would be perfectly lawful even without the agency's permission.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Janet
Feb 4, 2013, 10:50:01 AM2/4/13
to
In article <saOdnYD_Qe7j7pLM...@brightview.co.uk>,
inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk says...
I can't see how any recruitment agency could ever prove that their
unsolicited information to a company was the cause of the recruit
obtaining a job with that employer. Most determined job hunters use
multiple means to circulate their availability and CV and within any
field there are extensive networks of contacts.
Janet.
inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk says...
unsolicited information to a company was the cause of the recruit
obtaining a job with that employer. Most determined job hunters use
multiple means to circulate their availability and CV and within any
field there are extensive networks of contacts.
Janet.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2013, 11:50:02 AM2/4/13
to
>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Suppose they lend the candidate a mobile telephone belonging
>> > to the agency, and mention the number in the email. Is this
>> > still public information, or are you clearly using their
>> > services if you call the candidate on that number?
>>
>> My guess is that if you give them the ability to contact the
>> applicant directly, and you you contact the applicant in that
>> manner based on the email they sent, that would be sufficient
>> to form a contract.
>>
> Leaving aside questions of consideration, you then have to
> overcome the requirements for unambiguous acceptance, and
> communication of the acceptance.
Absolutely, that's the big problem. Proving the recipient of the
>>
>> > Suppose they lend the candidate a mobile telephone belonging
>> > to the agency, and mention the number in the email. Is this
>> > still public information, or are you clearly using their
>> > services if you call the candidate on that number?
>>
>> My guess is that if you give them the ability to contact the
>> applicant directly, and you you contact the applicant in that
>> manner based on the email they sent, that would be sufficient
>> to form a contract.
>>
> Leaving aside questions of consideration, you then have to
> overcome the requirements for unambiguous acceptance, and
> communication of the acceptance.
email actually used the information would be difficult if not
impossible in practice. I was dealing more with theory and less
with practical reality.
> Regarding the former, the
> conduct in contacting the candidate would have to be such as it
> demonstrated the intention to be bound by the contract. It's
> more likely to demonstrate the opposite: the employer decided
> not to have anything to do with the agency and contacted the
> candidate direct. Information is not a form of property, and you
> cannot take it back if it isn't paid for, unlike goods or
> intellectual property.
property in this kind of situation other than the practicality of
proving what was actually supplied and what was actually accepted.
I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
supplies in lieu of payment. But information can't be returned.
But since the burder of proof is on the email sender, the email
recipient who would simply testify that he never used the
information sent might be an insurmountable obstacle.
> Let's take another example: the TV series Heir Hunters follows
> probate research companies as they attempt to trace the heirs of
> an intestate deceased. When they find one, they ask them to sign
> a contract that gives the company its fee. But when they
> approach the heir about the death of an unspecified relative,
> the potential client could well say "that must be great-auntie
> Flo" and go and claim the inheritance without paying anything
> to the company. I don't see that they could do anything about
> that.
happened from time to time. My clients would send a vague letter
saying only that money had been found that belongs to them, and the
heir hunters would retrieve it for them upon agreement to pay. If
the heirs could figure out how to get the money themselves on that
sketchy information, you're right, there was no claim.
If more information had been provided (e.g. specific identity of
the deceased and the holder of the funds) the issue wouldn't be
breach of contract so much as simply proving that a contract was
actually formed.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2013, 11:50:09 AM2/4/13
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> The difference is that I'm not legally entitled to simply take a
> log and not pay for it. That would be a tort at the very least
> and probably theft.
>
> Whereas using the unsolicited information provided by the agency
> to search for and find the candidate, contact them, and
> eventually hire them, would be perfectly lawful even without the
> agency's permission.
It would be like someone sending you unsolicited office supplies,
> The difference is that I'm not legally entitled to simply take a
> log and not pay for it. That would be a tort at the very least
> and probably theft.
>
> Whereas using the unsolicited information provided by the agency
> to search for and find the candidate, contact them, and
> eventually hire them, would be perfectly lawful even without the
> agency's permission.
expecting to bill you later. Can you use them without paying?
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2013, 11:55:02 AM2/4/13
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> Information communicated before the contract was formed is past
> consideration, and cannot be good consideration for the alleged
> contract.Both parties must have obligations under the terms of
> the contract, and anything you have already done is not an
> obligation.
I was thinking of the situation where an agency sends out an email
> Information communicated before the contract was formed is past
> consideration, and cannot be good consideration for the alleged
> contract.Both parties must have obligations under the terms of
> the contract, and anything you have already done is not an
> obligation.
that says that a CV is attached, and if the recipient were to open
the email and eventually hire the candidate, that would create the
debt.
But you're right, it's certainly not a clear cut situation, and it is
not the kind of thing the law should be encouraging.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Message has been deleted
Ian Jackson
Feb 4, 2013, 1:05:02 PM2/4/13
to
In article <XnsA15D5902ABCB0s...@130.133.4.11>,
be breaching if they acted on the information without permission.
>I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
>that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
>supplies in lieu of payment.
This is a bit of a red herring because it brings into play the
legislation about unsolicited goods.
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality of
>proving what was actually supplied and what was actually accepted.
>I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
The difference is that there is no rule of law that the employer would
>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality of
>proving what was actually supplied and what was actually accepted.
>I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
be breaching if they acted on the information without permission.
>I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
>that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
>supplies in lieu of payment.
legislation about unsolicited goods.
Doctor Dave
Feb 4, 2013, 2:45:02 PM2/4/13
to
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 5:25:01 PM UTC, August West wrote:
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
>> Calill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
> But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, Carlill was the
> revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I will pay you
> [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the suplied information]
> and you will pay me". So I don't think it's clear that it applies.
Maybe it could be applied when the inevitably 'world-beating' candidates don't live up to expectations or promised performance ...
> revere situation - "Do something [use the smoke ball] and I will pay you
> [if it doesn't work]", not "Do something [use the suplied information]
> and you will pay me". So I don't think it's clear that it applies.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2013, 4:55:02 PM2/4/13
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
>>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality
>>of proving what was actually supplied and what was actually
>>accepted. I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
>
> The difference is that there is no rule of law that the employer
> would be breaching if they acted on the information without
> permission.
Good point. The fact that some action is illegal is not necessary
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
>>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality
>>of proving what was actually supplied and what was actually
>>accepted. I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
>
> The difference is that there is no rule of law that the employer
> would be breaching if they acted on the information without
> permission.
or sufficient to indicate that it is improper from a civil
standpoint, but it certainly indicates that it may be.
>>I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
>>that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
>>supplies in lieu of payment.
>
> This is a bit of a red herring because it brings into play the
> legislation about unsolicited goods.
indicative that unsolicited information may well be able to form an
obligation on the part of recipient under some circumstances.
Because the fact that the law exists indicates that, prior to the
law sending unsolicited goods could create an obligation to pay in
some situations. That is no longer the case by statute. But if
that statute does not apply to information, the former rule should
continue to apply to information.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
Feb 4, 2013, 2:35:02 PM2/4/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
> >> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> > Leaving aside questions of consideration, you then have to
> > overcome the requirements for unambiguous acceptance, and
> > communication of the acceptance.
>
> Absolutely, that's the big problem. Proving the recipient of the
> email actually used the information would be difficult if not
> impossible in practice. I was dealing more with theory and less
> with practical reality.
>
> > Regarding the former, the
> > conduct in contacting the candidate would have to be such as it
> > demonstrated the intention to be bound by the contract. It's
> > more likely to demonstrate the opposite: the employer decided
> > not to have anything to do with the agency and contacted the
> > candidate direct. Information is not a form of property, and you
> > cannot take it back if it isn't paid for, unlike goods or
> > intellectual property.
>
> I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
> property in this kind of situation other than the practicality of
> proving what was actually supplied and what was actually accepted.
> I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
The difference with goods is that the goods can remain the property of the
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
> >> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> > Leaving aside questions of consideration, you then have to
> > overcome the requirements for unambiguous acceptance, and
> > communication of the acceptance.
>
> Absolutely, that's the big problem. Proving the recipient of the
> email actually used the information would be difficult if not
> impossible in practice. I was dealing more with theory and less
> with practical reality.
>
> > Regarding the former, the
> > conduct in contacting the candidate would have to be such as it
> > demonstrated the intention to be bound by the contract. It's
> > more likely to demonstrate the opposite: the employer decided
> > not to have anything to do with the agency and contacted the
> > candidate direct. Information is not a form of property, and you
> > cannot take it back if it isn't paid for, unlike goods or
> > intellectual property.
>
> I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
> property in this kind of situation other than the practicality of
> proving what was actually supplied and what was actually accepted.
> I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
sender, and it takes a contract to transfer title. The recipient cannot
simply keep them (leaving aside the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act)
unless he pays for them.
>
> I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
> that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
> supplies in lieu of payment. But information can't be returned.
> But since the burder of proof is on the email sender, the email
> recipient who would simply testify that he never used the
> information sent might be an insurmountable obstacle.
Even if he did so blatantly, i don't think there is a case against him.
> I suppose one difference is that, if I send you office supplies
> that you did not order and then bill you, you can return the
> supplies in lieu of payment. But information can't be returned.
> But since the burder of proof is on the email sender, the email
> recipient who would simply testify that he never used the
> information sent might be an insurmountable obstacle.
>
> > Let's take another example: the TV series Heir Hunters follows
> > probate research companies as they attempt to trace the heirs of
> > an intestate deceased. When they find one, they ask them to sign
> > a contract that gives the company its fee. But when they
> > approach the heir about the death of an unspecified relative,
> > the potential client could well say "that must be great-auntie
> > Flo" and go and claim the inheritance without paying anything
> > to the company. I don't see that they could do anything about
> > that.
>
> I've actually represented heir hunters, and exactly that has
> happened from time to time. My clients would send a vague letter
> saying only that money had been found that belongs to them, and the
> heir hunters would retrieve it for them upon agreement to pay. If
> the heirs could figure out how to get the money themselves on that
> sketchy information, you're right, there was no claim.
>
> If more information had been provided (e.g. specific identity of
> the deceased and the holder of the funds) the issue wouldn't be
> breach of contract so much as simply proving that a contract was
> actually formed.
>
Did you omit to advise them that they could use this novel form of
> > Let's take another example: the TV series Heir Hunters follows
> > probate research companies as they attempt to trace the heirs of
> > an intestate deceased. When they find one, they ask them to sign
> > a contract that gives the company its fee. But when they
> > approach the heir about the death of an unspecified relative,
> > the potential client could well say "that must be great-auntie
> > Flo" and go and claim the inheritance without paying anything
> > to the company. I don't see that they could do anything about
> > that.
>
> I've actually represented heir hunters, and exactly that has
> happened from time to time. My clients would send a vague letter
> saying only that money had been found that belongs to them, and the
> heir hunters would retrieve it for them upon agreement to pay. If
> the heirs could figure out how to get the money themselves on that
> sketchy information, you're right, there was no claim.
>
> If more information had been provided (e.g. specific identity of
> the deceased and the holder of the funds) the issue wouldn't be
> breach of contract so much as simply proving that a contract was
> actually formed.
>
unilateral contract.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2013, 7:10:02 PM2/4/13
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> I've actually represented heir hunters, and exactly that has
>> happened from time to time. My clients would send a vague
>> letter saying only that money had been found that belongs to
>> them, and the heir hunters would retrieve it for them upon
>> agreement to pay. If the heirs could figure out how to get the
>> money themselves on that sketchy information, you're right,
>> there was no claim.
>>
>> If more information had been provided (e.g. specific identity
>> of the deceased and the holder of the funds) the issue wouldn't
>> be breach of contract so much as simply proving that a contract
>> was actually formed.
>>
> Did you omit to advise them that they could use this novel form
> of unilateral contract.
Ah, well the devil is in the details. While in theory they might
> I've actually represented heir hunters, and exactly that has
>> happened from time to time. My clients would send a vague
>> letter saying only that money had been found that belongs to
>> them, and the heir hunters would retrieve it for them upon
>> agreement to pay. If the heirs could figure out how to get the
>> money themselves on that sketchy information, you're right,
>> there was no claim.
>>
>> If more information had been provided (e.g. specific identity
>> of the deceased and the holder of the funds) the issue wouldn't
>> be breach of contract so much as simply proving that a contract
>> was actually formed.
>>
> Did you omit to advise them that they could use this novel form
> of unilateral contract.
be able to form a contract by disclosing the information and
conditioning use of it on paying a fee (and "might" is a critical
word because the courts may or may not go along with it), from a
practical standpoint enforcement would be difficult if not
impossible most of the time.
I'm sure you've seen cases where there was technically a contract
(perhaps an oral contract), but it was not able to be enforced due
to lack of sufficient evidence.
As I've said before, I agree with you that there are potential
problems asserting this kind of thing as a contract. And even then
if a contract were to arise, the problems of proving that are even
greater.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
Feb 5, 2013, 4:15:02 AM2/5/13
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
>
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
> >>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality
> >>of proving what was actually supplied and what was actually
> >>accepted. I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
> >
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm not so sure that I'd say that information is different from
> >>property in this kind of situation other than the practicality
> >>of proving what was actually supplied and what was actually
> >>accepted. I don't know that there needs to be a distinction.
> >
> It seems to me that the legislation on unsolicited goods is
> indicative that unsolicited information may well be able to form an
> obligation on the part of recipient under some circumstances.
>
> Because the fact that the law exists indicates that, prior to the
> law sending unsolicited goods could create an obligation to pay in
> some situations. That is no longer the case by statute. But if
> that statute does not apply to information, the former rule should
> continue to apply to information.
>
I'm too young to remember the legal details (though I do remember
> indicative that unsolicited information may well be able to form an
> obligation on the part of recipient under some circumstances.
>
> Because the fact that the law exists indicates that, prior to the
> law sending unsolicited goods could create an obligation to pay in
> some situations. That is no longer the case by statute. But if
> that statute does not apply to information, the former rule should
> continue to apply to information.
>
unsolicited volumes of encyclopaedias arriving) but they must have worked by
retaining title to the goods, and demanding either the return of the goods
or payment. Unless the recipient kept the goods in safe keeping indefinitely
without using them, so he could return them on request, or incurred costs in
returning them, he was potentially exposed. The grounds may have been
dubious - I think it was regarded as as a form of harassment - but it must
have relied on either a contract formed by keeping and using the goods, or
damages for conversion. The difference is that if you appropriate someone
else's goods, you are either agreeing to the terms, or stealing them. It is
difficult to interpret the sending of the goods as a gift. By using
information someone gives you, you are not doing anything you are not
entitled to do without a contract, so you cannot infer acceptance of the
contractual offer.
AnthonyL
Feb 5, 2013, 8:50:02 AM2/5/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:50:01 +0000, Janet <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I can't see how any recruitment agency could ever prove that their
>unsolicited information to a company was the cause of the recruit
>obtaining a job with that employer. Most determined job hunters use
>multiple means to circulate their availability and CV and within any
>field there are extensive networks of contacts.
>
I've already mentioned that they may plant seeds. If you were to
>
> I can't see how any recruitment agency could ever prove that their
>unsolicited information to a company was the cause of the recruit
>obtaining a job with that employer. Most determined job hunters use
>multiple means to circulate their availability and CV and within any
>field there are extensive networks of contacts.
>
contact one of these it proves that you are intent on by-passing their
terms. A similar problem exists with various directories where they
state that the information must not be used for marketing purposes and
accordingly a few of the entries they put in are made up and come back
to the publisher. What the law can do about it is another matter.
--
AnthonyL
0 new messages