FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1557749566> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1557749566 endingPage "760" @default.
• W1557749566 startingPage "739" @default.
• W1557749566 abstract "Courts have struggled to uniformly classify software as a good or a service and have consequently failed to apply a consistent body of law in that domain. Instead, courts have relied on the predominant purpose test to determine whether the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or common law should apply to a given software contract. This test, designed for traditional goods and services that do not share software's complexity or rapid advancement, has perpetuated the uncertainty surrounding software's legal status. This Note proposes that courts adopt the software test as an alternative to the predominant purpose test. Under this proposal, the American Law Institute (ALI)'s Principles of the Law of Software Contracts would govern transactions that involve software, and the UCC or common law would govern all other transactions. This new test would provide greater legal clarity with only a minimal shift in jurisprudence. No court has yet adopted a similar test or cited the ALI Principles as authority in a software dispute. landscape is ripe for change.INTRODUCTIONIn 1983, the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, obliterating the aircraft and killing all 269 passengers and crew on board.1 Flight 007 had entered restricted airspace over Russia because of an incorrect setting on the plane's software.2 In 2009, Air France Flight 447 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean after pilots failed to respond adequately when ice crystals outside caused the plane's autopilot software to disengage.3 And in 2013, bad software design contributed to the runway crash that killed three passengers aboard an Asiana Airlines flight.4 In an age where software dominates commercial life, it remains unclear what law a court would apply in actions arising out of events like these.There are two primary options. A court would apply 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC or Article 2) if it deemed the autopilot software to be a good, or it would apply common law if it deemed the software to be a service.5 difference is not merely semantic. UCC and common law differ in significant ways on contract formation and interpretation rules.6 For instance, a software seller must tender a perfect product free of defects under the UCC7 but must only substantially perform under common law.8 An aggrieved software buyer is consequently more likely to recover under the UCC than under common law when a glitch causes a catastrophic accident.Courts routinely apply the predominant purpose test9 to software contracts to determine if the UCC applies.10 Under that test, 2 governs when the transaction at issue is predominantly for goods, while common law applies when the transaction is predominantly for services.11 U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule whether software is a good or service, and there is no national consensus on the issue.12 And yet despite its prevalence, the predominant purpose test has failed to assist courts in adjudicating software disputes. As a result, software's legal status remains a fundamental yet unanswered question.This is the first piece of commentary to focus exclusively on the predominant purpose test's limitations in software disputes. It is also the first to present a practical replacement: courts should adopt the software test, which would produce tremendous benefits to the legal community while exacting only a small shift in jurisprudence. software test directs courts away from classifying software contracts as goods or services transactions and asks only whether software is substantial in a contract. Courts would then apply the American Law Institute (ALI)'s Principles of the Law of Software Contracts in cases where software is and revert to the UCC or common law for all other contracts. The Principles are not 'law,' of course, unless a court adopts a provision. …" @default.
• W1557749566 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1557749566 creator A5082467915 @default.
• W1557749566 date "2015-03-01" @default.
• W1557749566 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1557749566 title "Installation Failure:How the Predominant Purpose Test HasPerpetuated Software’s Uncertain Legal StatusUnder the Uniform Commercial Code" @default.
• W1557749566 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1557749566 type Work @default.
• W1557749566 sameAs 1557749566 @default.
• W1557749566 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1557749566 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1557749566 hasAuthorship W1557749566A5082467915 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C2777904410 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C127413603 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C17744445 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C199360897 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C199539241 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C2777904410 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C38652104 @default.
• W1557749566 hasConceptScore W1557749566C41008148 @default.
• W1557749566 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1557749566 hasLocation W15577495661 @default.
• W1557749566 hasOpenAccess W1557749566 @default.
• W1557749566 hasPrimaryLocation W15577495661 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W105967188 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W1537953392 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W1748845301 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W1967673330 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W222348152 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2237319980 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2279799725 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2296817681 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2300849277 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2414135312 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W246596611 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W2768722761 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W281817186 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W3121419962 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W3121717838 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W3122888574 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W3124252684 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W44755126 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W60334490 @default.
• W1557749566 hasRelatedWork W1692847470 @default.
• W1557749566 hasVolume "113" @default.
• W1557749566 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1557749566 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1557749566 magId "1557749566" @default.
• W1557749566 workType "article" @default.