Contract Enforcement On "third Parties"

[y_feldblum]

Indeed. Which is why the seller should be punished. However the buyer still has the right to own the book - it isnt stolen property and there is no reason to punish him for reading it.

But it is stolen property.

[DavidOdden]

But it is stolen property.

What is your evidnce for that claim?

[Proverb]

Scholastic engaged in a conditional sale with booksellers.

e.g.

"I transfer, by way of this monitary/contractual transaction, all rights to this property except: [right1], [right2] ect ... by these: [condition1], [condition2] ect ... "

If a condition is not met that properly transfers a specific right to property (simply, as an example, {if you don't pay me}->{you cant have this}) then the 'tranferee' has no claim on [right1], [right2] ect... of said property.

Scholastic has claim to any pre-sold book.

It is up to the buyers to pursue restitution from the sellers for involving them in an illegal sale (such that, the value transfered by buyer to seller is left unpaid after the rightful reclaiming of said property)

any comments?

[HaloNoble6]

Proof scholastic engaged in such a contract?

[DavidOdden]

Scholastic engaged in a conditional sale with booksellers.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant since the Canadian publisher is Raincoast books. Even so, your analysis is just plain wrong, since the publisher has no contract with the buyer, so cannot bind the buyer by a contract. At best, the publisher has a right to legal retribution against the seller.

[Hal]

But it is stolen property.

What item was stolen, and at precisely what point?

[Proverb]

The Contract:

http://www.scholastic.com/custsupport/book...ontract2005.pdf

Does the retailer have the right to actually sell the product before its date?

If not, then, with given proof, could the publisher seek to withdraw it's product, even from an honest buyer? In this case moving the burden of retribution to the seller.

Consider:

A steals from B

B sells 'honestly' to C

Can A seek its property from C at B's expense i.e. refund with intrest?

If I am missing something here please comment , this is an important issue to me.

[HaloNoble6]

Precisely as in my stolen Decleration of Independence example. Who here would claim that I have a right to keep my stolen copy and why?

[DavidOdden]

Does the retailer have the right to actually sell the product before its date?

If not, then, with given proof, could the publisher seek to withdraw it's product, even from an honest buyer?    In this case moving the burden of retribution to the seller.

Under a contract with Scholastic, the retailer does not have the right to pre-sell a Restricted Title. Clauses 4a-c state the publisher's remedies, which are against the seller, and do not even include reclaiming books in the hands of the seller, because it is the property of the seller, at this point. (Other remedies against the seller might be available in court if there were negligence). The problem with the boxed equation is that there was no theft.

[Proverb]

So then what is it that actally happens when the seller violates the contract?

If you violate a contract to gain a value, isn't that value stolen in a sense, perhaps 'unjustly gained'?

I think in asking that question, I've come to realize that int this situation the only one who can be affected in a violation of a contract is the violator. Is this correct?

[DavidOdden]

So then what is it that actally happens when the seller violates the contract?

Basically, you've broken a promise. That is quite different from theft. It means that you can be forced to either make good on that promise, if possible, or you can be forced to provide some compensation for the actual damages that you caused to the other party by failing to perform. Theft is taking of another person's property (with a sale, the object in question is no longer the first person's property), and requires a particular mental state (mens rea "guilty mind", i.e. the intent to take, in this case -- contract violation isn't about mental state, and it is about what you actually do, even unknowingly).

I think in asking that question, I've come to realize that int this situation the only one who can be affected in a violation of a contract is the violator. Is this correct?

Anyone can be "affected". Only a putative violator can be (successfully) held responsible (in a decent count). In a more "good old days" mode, only the contracting parties have standing to pursue matters about contract violation in the court. Thus if taxi firm Jones contractually relies on maintenance company Smith to keep the cars running and Smith breaches the contract by not keeping the cars running, passanger Williams who has a contract with Jone to transport cannot sue Smith for breach because he didn't get his ride to the airport. However, since the announcement of the doctrine of negligence and various other social responsibility concepts, who knows?

[Zeus44]

You must keep in mind what contracts are all about. Like all standard contracts, the contract between the publisher and the seller did not say that the seller does not own the book if the publisher's conditions are not met. On the contrary, all the contract said was that if the seller violates its promise to not sell the book before a certain time, the publisher is legally entitled to a remedy. And in contract law, the standard remedy is monetary compensation. Contract law does not say that you must perform your contractual obligations; it says only that you must perform your contractual obligations or pay damages to the injured party. The normal form of damages is expectation damages, which say that the offending party must put the injured party, monetarily, in the position the he would have been in if the contract had been performed.

Contract law imposes obligations only on the parties to a contract. The buyer was not a party to the contract between the publisher and the seller and thus has no obligations to either, beyond paying for the book. Therefore, the publisher has no claim, under the contract, against the buyer. He can only bring a civil suit against the seller for violation of contract.