‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Tell HN: Claude Code just accepted and signed a contract for me. Without asking

51 points · 98 comments · franze

  1. voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
    If a contract is automatically signed by an agent on your behalf, is it legally binding?
    1. GJim · · focus · HN ↗
      It absolutely is legally binding in Blighty.

      If you authorised an agent to act on your behalf, you are entirely responsible for their actions providing they acted within the bounds of authority you gave them.

      Regardless, OPs software (his AI agent) isn't a legal entity and OP is entirely responsible for the software he chooses to use. Clamming the software is responsible for his actions (a software bug) isn't going to stand up in court. Whilst OP could claim damages for being provided with faulty software I suspect this will be very difficult to say the least; the authors of the AI agent will make the (very good) defence that their software was used incorrectly.

      1. chrisjj · · focus · HN ↗
        > OP could claim damages for being provided with faulty software

        "Claude is AI and can make mistakes" is clear, no?

        1. mysterydip · · focus · HN ↗
          “Bob is a person and can make mistakes” but we still hold them accountable (generally). But I assume all the AI have licenses with terms similar to (from the MIT license):

          THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

      2. user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
        I'm not a legal expert, but:

        Isn't the question whether there was an act of contractual assent attributable to the user for this transaction?

        I don't see why we would jump from the AI agent not being a legal entity to the conclusion that the user is responsible for its actions, or that the action is attributable to the user.

        If there was a conventional software error, the software not being a legal entity doesn't mean that an offer the software incorrectly sends must be treated as coming directly from the user.

        And in particular that seems unlikely to me in a situation where the user has set up the system without any intended authorization to enter contracts at all.

        1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

          [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.