I like how suddenly the intense legal minuate are the most important details of a system as if we're in a contract law class, as opposed to the obvious point that in general these agreements are fairly obvious

Making up rules without thinking about the consequences of those rules is a Bad Idea.

What happens to contractual obligations when companies are acquired or dissolved is a matter that is settled law. It has been well thought out and is probably in scope for literally dozens of legal cases a day.

Just because something is new to you, doesn't mean that professionals that deal with this every day have never thought about it.

(The actual answer depends on the State, entity type, if it was dissolved or suspended, if a bankruptcy is involved, etc. and you should just consult a contracts lawyer)

Edge cases aren't consequences; they're trivia. And at the the of day, our legal system is governed by humans who interpret and argue. Until humans are perfect, we'll never write a perfect law.

"Perfection is impossible, therefore don't try" is a dodge.

We're not making the laws, we are observers commenting on the status quo. I'm sure no one's losing sleep over hacker news commenters being upset

Are you a practicing attorney?

What are the problems here?

> Suppose that Small Co sells the assets of a business unit to Big Co. Do you now have a contract with Small Co. or Big Co.? Small Co. no longer has the rights to the software

That's right, that's what they sold.

> Big Co. may not agree to the terms of the old license.

Then I guess maybe they shouldn't have bought it.

> Suppose someone dies and their assets go to their heirs. Do you now have a contract with the heirs?

Yes. They inherited the deceased's assets.

> What if there are no heirs, so the assets go to the government? Do you now have a contract with the government?

You'd probably have to ask an estate planning attorney about the specifics of this, but so what if you did?

> I can think of some fun terms to add to a software license from someone on their deathbed if that's the case.

You should totally do it lol

So if I sell you a magic rock under the contract that so long as you are in possession of said rock I have legal authority to monitor your household to make sure you don’t misuse the rock for evil, and you die and your heir comes in possession of the rock, I now have a contract with your heir? I can go set up cameras in their house and invade their privacy just because you wanted a magic rock? That doesn't seem right?..

Contract law isn't absolutist like that, and it can't bind both parties in a way that's unreasonable or contrary to certain basic rights-related laws. That's why you can't contract yourself into slavery.

What'll happen in cases like that is that it'll be litigated, interpreted, and either amended through a settlement agreement or annulled.

As others have said, the law isn't a programming language. It's a human system that, while being rigorous, strict, structured, and binding for the most part, is nonetheless capable by design of nuance and interpretation within known and constrained bounds.

It sounds like that contract is a liability. Not a lawyer, but I don't think that liabilities are inherited the same way. Most likely if you wanted to do this, you would structure it as a rental agreement and get the rock back.

Probably if the heir accepted the rock during the estate proceedings, but im just speculating.