Legal Scholar: A contract is morally binding on a consumer only if the consumer was afforded a reasonable opportunity to negotiate its terms. Software end-user license agreements (EULAs) are presented to consumers strictly on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. However, failing to enforce EULAs would lead to rampant software piracy, ultimately destroying the software industry. Therefore, because the software company Vertex required its customers to explicitly click "I agree" before accessing its latest program, Vertex is morally justified in enforcing its EULA against users who pirate the software.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the legal scholar's reasoning?
- AA company is morally justified in enforcing a contract against a consumer only if the consumer explicitly agreed to its terms and the failure to enforce such contracts would result in the destruction of an industry.
- BAny contract to which a consumer explicitly agrees is morally binding on that consumer, provided that the strict enforcement of such contracts is required to prevent the collapse of an industry.
- A company is morally justified in enforcing a contract that is not morally binding on a consumer, provided that the consumer explicitly indicated agreement to its terms and failing to enforce such contracts would result in the destruction of an industry.Cevap
- DIf a consumer is afforded a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the terms of an agreement, then the agreement is morally binding and the company is justified in enforcing it to prevent industry destruction.
- EIf enforcing contracts that are presented on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis is the only way to prevent rampant piracy, then consumers have a moral obligation not to pirate software regardless of whether they agreed to the contract.
Cevap
The correct principle must state that a company is justified in enforcing a contract that is not morally binding, provided the consumer agreed to it and nonenforcement would destroy an industry.
To justify the conclusion, the correct principle must provide a sufficient logical bridge from the premises to the outcome. The argument establishes that Vertex's EULA is not morally binding because it is a 'take-it-or-leave-it' agreement. However, the scholar concludes that enforcing the EULA is nonetheless morally justified because users clicked 'I agree' and nonenforcement would destroy the software industry. The correct answer provides exactly this rule: it states that a company is justified in enforcing a non-morally binding contract if the consumer explicitly agreed and failing to enforce such contracts would destroy an industry. By explicitly accommodating the fact that the contract is not morally binding, it connects all premises directly to the conclusion.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Sufficient Principles and Intermediate Inferences
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s