-------- froomkin@law.miami.edu wrote:---------------
As an, ahem, lawyer, I think what you do and how you do it matter a lot
...
Pulling a plug after reasonable/lots of warnings (did you miss anyone? how
do you know for sure?) is on the safer end of the legal spectrum.
Indeed, I was thinking of the US system, since
(1) that's what I know well, and
(2) it has the most trigger happy plaintiff's lawyers (although in my experience, jurors tend to take their responsibilities very seriously, contrary to what someone earlier in the thread suggested), and
(3) Vixie is AFAIK located in the US, meaning that he'd be susceptible to suit here. It's not so obvious he could be sued elsewhere on these facts although I can't rule it out; even if he were, the court might decide choice-of-law dictated US law anyway.
Despite the above, it's of course right to ask what foreign legal systems might say about this. Alas, I can't answer the question, except to say that in matters of commerce the answers often do tend to converge.
[I think it's time to go back to lurking...]
One might infer that since the service Paul offered and is considering
making changes to might reside in the US, and that (presumably) Paul
is a US national, that US legal interpretation might have some sway
in the matter.
Or not.
--bill
quoting Jamie... "I reject your reality and subsitute my own."