>No, I am not saying that. Rather, I am saying that 1 - there likely is no contract in the first place. As with verbal contracts, while they in theory are enforceable, it is very difficult to do so from an evidentiary standpoint. The old saying is that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is printed on.

But in this case, the "verbal contract" (IMO) is the web posting, whatever; ie. the evidence (evidentiary standpoint) is obvious; no "hearsay", blah, blah.

In this case, there is "paper"; no "third party" is required to testify as to what was said.

You may argue it on some other point, but (IMO) you cannot argue it on "lack of evidence".