[governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-117851463
9- at b2.c2.bise6.blackberry>, at 12:36:31 on Sat, 13 Aug 2011, 
cveraq at gmail.com writes
>This is more a situation in which we should consider where the user is 
>located when the illegal fact occured  (independent of where he is 
>from), or where the law violation was.. and where the law violator was 
>at that moment.. (Again it does not matter where or under which 
>jurisdiction he is  supposed to be)

In this case it looks like everything is in Canada, including an 
intermediary http://www.groupon.ca/

Normal discussion about the liability of intermediaries (which sometimes 
has a cross-border element) would concentrate on whose fault it was if 
the coupon was refused *within* the time limit.

>Carlos
>Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Claro
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
>Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:02:53
>To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Roland Perry 
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
>Subject: Re: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An
> Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...
>
>In message <F1B2016EB9444E3AA601DFD52D364CBE at userPC>, at 16:09:08 on
>Fri, 12 Aug 2011, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp
>>iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss
>
>Are the coupons issued in Canadian Dollars, by/to people living in
>Canada?
>
>If so, I can't see why it matters that they were issued through the
>Internet - the appropriate Canadian Law must apply.
>
>(I'm not saying it would necessarily be different if the coupons were
>issued in Japan, in US dollars, and then redeemed in Canada before a
>deadline at some agreed exchange rate, but thankfully the situation is
>simpler in this case I think).
>
>I have a thing which I call my "Yellow Underpants test". When you are
>prohibited by law from doing something, can you say "but it's OK because
>I'm wearing Yellow Underpants, and the law doesn't mention that
>particular situation".
>
>[For "wearing Yellow Underpants" substitute "doing it over the
>Internet"]
>
>ps It doesn't matter whether the person issuing the coupons thinks it's
>"fair" or not for them to expire. That decision was taken away from them
>when the law was passed.

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t