The fact that aha wouldn’t get anything from performing this action.
Here’s a counter example.
Suppose you asked someone to do home repairs, and that you’d pay for materials. You’d be handing them cash for the materials, so that should be consideration, right?
But the fact that they don’t get to keep this money means that they don’t really get anything.
Now, imagine that they already bought the materials and you were paying them back. They do get the cash you give them, but it does go against an equal expenditure in their bookkeeping, specifically that which paid for the materials. So they’re still not ahead anything.
Now, compare this to aha. He would get the money his friend gave him, but this would be just to pay off his expenditure in buying the item for the friend. He wouldn’t end up with anything for his time or trouble.
Thus, imho, no consideration.
And yes, we all know what consideration is, thank you. If there’s a specific phrase in that quote that indicates your point of view, bold it or requote it. All I saw was a textbook description, the same one we were using, when we decided that it wasn’t there.
Chronos, the thing is that if I sell you a box and tell you it’s a game, there’s nothing to indicate you don’t actually own it, that you only own a license to play it according to my rules. That doesn’t change if the game is a puzzle or a board game. Why should it change if there’s a CD-ROM in the box and the game is a puzzle program?
I still maintain that you own that copy. Your rights with regard to certain actions, specifically those which violate copyright law, are limited, but you still own that copy and the rights to do anything not specifically forbidden by law with it.
I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary, just the claims of software companies, those with the most to gain if I believe them.