Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia
Behind the X owner’s trolling is a years long obsession with the internet’s favorite encyclopedia, says Depths of Wiki creator Annie Rauwerda.
You're viewing a single thread.
“I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia.”
is such promise legally binding in US? it would be fun to take billion dollars from him and i am pretty sure we could all survive wiki being renamed for a day...
is such promise legally binding in US?
Absolutely not.
and you know that, or are you mistaking your thoughts and wishes with facts?
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+verbal+promise+legally+binding+in+usa
Read your own link. There's nothing resembling a contract here, and even your own link says this doesn't apply given the amount of money involved.
Sit down.
which link says that? i suspect you didn't even bother to click on it, did you?
The first one that Google literally highlights, if you click it, it says that verbal contracts are binding but purchases of goods over $500 is an exception.
If you're not talking about the first search result, maybe link to an actual source instead of the search results.
It's also only a contact if two parties agree. Has the Wikimedia foundation even replied to this malarkey?
The very first one.
But of course now you've tipped your hand that you didn't even have a source in mind and literally just googled it without clicking a single result.
Seriously, sit down.
It'd be for 1 year minimum. And of course it is legally binding, these are the terms. Generally speaking, the only things that are not legally binding are contracts that involve illegal activity or contracts with a minor. Everything else can be enforced.
To address the arguments below...Elon Musk hasn't drawn up a contract because the offer has not been accepted. Of course he would draw up a basic, legally enforceable contract with these terms...if Wikipedia accepted, and said yes, I want $1B. Please draw up contract. This is how the world works. 🙄 Contracts, legal obligations, ability to enforce them.
So what you're saying is that, no, that tweet alone is not legally binding.