sign on the dotted line" is widely known to be a method of signing a contract, clicking on a button isn't,
Actually it's just more
traditional, we live in a time where there are all sorts of new technologies, and in most countries we are lucky enough that contract law allows for a variety of ways to make a contract. Did you know that in Australia illiterate aboriginal people sometimes sign documents using nothing but a 'cross' on the piece of paper. How this would effect a court case I don't know. But it's nice to know the flexability is there.
which is why I argue that there needs to be extra consideration as to whether it really counts. It would seem a rather bizarre situtation if *absolutely anything* can be counted as meaning agreement, and that one side gets to decide this method, without worrying about what the other party thinks.
IMO if you don't like to sign - don't sign, if you don't like to click - don't click. Some people would see clicking on 'I agree' as being much more convenient than signing a document and sending it through the post for example.
I sign these things before I hand over the money. If I came home one day to find that I wasn't able to get into my flat because the locks had been changed, and the landlord said he'd let me back in only when I signed some new conditions, I'd be furious! And this would be downright illegal for him to do. The fact that I might have the choice to move elsewhere is irrelevant - we already made a contract.
Well, imagine if you had to sit in the computer shop and sign on the dotted line there? There are not many other alternatives, that I can imagine. Especialy not ones that are as convienient for the end user.
I believe that these clickable contracts(hey I invented a term there!) are mainly there for the end users convenience, i think some old software just had registration cards to send in.
Really? Does this mean you will send me money for posting to this thread? (see my earlier message) 
What it means is that if you said "I sell XYZ product, send me an email telling me that you want it, I'll send it out to you and bill you for it", and if I were to do as you instructed, I have made an order, a contract(or agreement) has been made, and you would be obliged to send what I ordered, and I would be obliged to pay for it.
If on the other hand people were being asked to sign contracts before we paid for them, then that would be fair enough.
Do you think it should change?
And then hopefully people would wonder why they're being asked to sign legal documents to use software, when we don't have to do this for any other common product.
Most other products are not subject to some of the legal problems that software is, eg. Piracy.
@all
IMO it is really helpful for everybody if they learn a bit about contracts.
Did you know that when you buy an item from a shop, they give you the item, you give the money - there a contract has just been made.
If you use a vending machine, contracts still applicable.
There is a wider definition of the word 'contract' than most people think. :-)
