Originally Posted by mooseman
Sure, no doubt that is often the case. But I'm fairly certain that requirements for binding don't include ones over the internet with no good faith exchanges. I think you'll find that even if the dealer was being purposely sleazy, there is little legal recourse.
And I think you misunderstood my post regarding spouses. One spouse can break a contract that the other signed regarding contracting. So, you might with full knowledge hire someone to put in windows in your house, but your wife could nullify the contract even though she isn't a signatory, and that would be JUST LIKE HER, ALWAYS MEDDLING!
But it was an example as proof of laws looking to protect those involved or even affected by the contract.
Our argument was regarding the "moral basis" of laws. And those are there to protect both buyer and seller.
I hear what you are saying, did not misunderstand your spouse comment, and will add a few points:
**This is a merchant contract case (UCC), not a domestic dispute between spouses, so please throw that example away...that's all i was saying
**Lastly, there are invitations/advertisements(news paper ad's), and then there are offers by merchants that can be countered offered and negotiated upon(binding upon acceptance). This was an offer by a merchant, not an advertisement. I think the main point, was the BUY it Now feature, which exemplifies that this was indeed an offer that was in turn, accepted by the buyer. Value has not been exchanged of course, which may be the next hurdle to get past.