zlacker

>>isp+(OP)
There's a great new "use case" for AI: dodging bait and switch laws! Sure, normally if a dealership employee explicitly offered a car for a given price in writing only to reveal it was incorrect later it would be illegal, but when an "AI" does the same we suddenly can't hold anyone accountable. Ta-da!

>>clipsy+r06
I'm not sure exactly how this would play out, but it seems intuitively not true. If I convinced the front service staff at McDonalds to sell me the store for $1, that obviously wouldn't be seen as a valid deal.

>>Gigach+g26
The employees do not have the right to sell the store at any price, so I don't think the analogy holds up. From a short bit of googling:

"In Federal Claims courts, the key components for evaluating a claim of improper bait-and-switch by the recipient of a contract are whether: (1) the seller represented in its initial proposal that they would rely on certain specified employees/staff when performing the services; (2) the recipient relied on this representation of information when evaluating the proposal; (3) it was foreseeable and probable that the employees/staff named in the initial proposal would not be available to implement the contract work; and (4) employees/staff other than those listed in the initial proposal instead were or would be performing the services."[0]

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bait_and_switch