undefined | Better HN

0 pointsConst-me11mo ago0 comments

I think the language is OK, it’s just that you are consistently ignoring “in order to promote a product” clause.

The first case is legal because waiter gets paid by the restaurant to serve meals, not to promote the specific brand of rose wine. Only illegal if the waiter has another, secret contract with the wine manufacturer to “recommend” specific wine.

The other two cases are legal because the money exchanged in order to receive goods. The fact the goods are then used to promote something is irrelevant.

0 comments

kragen11mo ago

I wasn't ignoring it; I specifically criticized it in detail. Your interpretation does not seem defensible or even coherent, but maybe you could propose less ambiguous language that clearly lays out the interpretation you have in mind. That way we can evaluate its tradeoffs.

Const-meOP11mo ago

I’m confident from PoV of any judge, the waiter in question gets paid for serving meals.

Similarly, a man purchasing physical stuff is giving money in exchange for the goods as opposed to advertisement services. Classic contract of sale of physical goods, nothing even slightly ambiguous.

It’s the same with ordering a sign. “Exchanging money in order to promote a product” doesn’t happen because manufacturing the sign is not a promotion. To promote something using a sign, you would need to post the sign in a publicly visible place. Manufacturing a sign and giving it to your client in private doesn’t promote the product shown on the sign.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse