• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ga. Man Must Pay $50,000 After Breaking Engagement to Fiancee, Appeals Court Says

Cardinal said:
It's that whole social contract thing: we give up our right to deal with dishonest scumbags by putting a bullet in their faces, and instead the government steps in to deal with those scumbags using courts instead. And before you tell me what you personally would like, keep in mind humanity decided to make that contract a looooooong time ago. However it's been enacted over the millennia we've decided as a civilization that having the ruling of courts over personal revenge is way more preferable.
Click to expand...

Social Contract? I didn't sign ****.
 
Who is this Triola?
 
Cardinal said:
See what happens when you miss meetings?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I never agreed to your contract. It clearly has no validity and I have no reason to obey it.
 
Henrin said:
Sorry, I never agreed to your contract. It clearly has no validity and I have no reason to obey it.
Click to expand...

If you benefit in any way from the trappings of civilization, you've agreed to it. Don't like it? Go live off the grid, grow and hunt your own food, no electricity, no military protection, no nothing that arose out of civilization.
 
Cardinal said:
If you benefit in any way from the trappings of civilization, you've agreed to it. Don't like it? Go live off the grid, grow and hunt your own food, no electricity, no military protection, no nothing that arose out of civilization.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean I agreed to some kind of contract. Benefiting from something doesn't mean you agreed to it.
 
Henrin said:
That doesn't mean I agreed to some kind of contract. Benefiting from something doesn't mean you agreed to it.
Click to expand...

If you benefit from it without agreeing to it, then you're being a parasite. In any case, there will always be anarchists who'll think the whole social contract thing was a poor idea, but the rest of the world has consistently accepted that all things considered, it's been preferable to the alternative. But again, if you don't like it, go live off the grid. There are still many parts of the world where you could disappear into the wilderness of Alaska or Northern Canada and pull it off.
 
Cardinal said:
If you benefit from it without agreeing to it, then you're being a parasite. In any case, there will always be anarchists who'll think the whole social contract thing was a poor idea, but the rest of the world has consistently accepted that all things considered, it's been preferable to the alternative. But again, if you don't like it, go live off the grid. There are still many parts of the world where you could disappear into the wilderness of Alaska or Northern Canada and pull it off.
Click to expand...

Besides those in government name me one person that ever consented to their government? Don't feel bad if you can't do this. Now, find me historical proof of this social contract being formulated or agreed to. Again, don't feel bad if you can't do this. So, if you are a parasite for benefiting from something you never agreed to, does that mean we are all parasites?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Besides those in government name me one person that ever consented to their government? Don't feel bad if you can't do this. Now, find me historical proof of this social contract being formulated or agreed to. Again, don't feel bad if you can't do this. So, if you are a parasite to benefiting from something you never agreed to, does that mean we are all parasites?
Click to expand...

What facile dodging that is. If you take the position that you should benefit from something without personally agreeing to it, then it's effectively no different than the teenager who argues that he should be able to live rent free with his parents and not have to do any chores. This belief, free of personal responsibility severely diminishes the credibility of your position. If you aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices for your beliefs then don't expect anyone to take them very seriously. And if you can't do that then you are a parasite, pure and simple.

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 
cpgrad08 said:
Harder and Harder to be man when it comes to the American Legal System.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that the man got the bad end of this.

She gets pregnant. He gets her to quit her job (in this economy?) and move to raise their child. There is a ring and a promise to marry. The whole time he is betraying her? Takes money to relocate and takes time to get a job back.

Seems like his wounds were self inflicted. He was his own worst enemy.
 
Cardinal said:
What facile dodging that is. If you take the position that you should benefit from something without personally agreeing to it, then it's effectively no different than the teenager who argues that he should be able to live rent free with his parents and not have to do any chores. This belief, free of personal responsibility severely diminishes the credibility of your position. If you aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices for your beliefs then don't expect anyone to take them very seriously. And if you can't do that then you are a parasite, pure and simple.

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...

The first sentence of your article needs explaining.

Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.
Click to expand...

So if it is dependent upon a contract or agreement being made, and yet, there is no contract or agreement made, what does that mean to the argument being laid out?

Also failing back on Thomas Hobbes, well, that is pretty laughable considering what his theory actually was.

According to Hobbes the laws of nature requires that human beings seek peace, and establishment of contracts is the best means of doing so. However he also concludes the hunger for power threatens the contract.

This leads Hobbes to conclude that there must be a common power, a sovereign authority that forces the people to uphold the contract. The sovereign is to be endowed with all the individual powers and wills of all, with the authority to punish anyone who breaks its tenets. The sovereign operates through fear and the threat of punishment reinforcing the laws of nature, thus ensuring the social contract. This sovereign is an artificial person of sorts called Leviathan with the sovereignty being the soul, and the sovereign itself, being the head. Leviathan is a metaphor Hobbes uses for the state.

Hobbes concludes that the only way to establish such a common force is for people to put all their power upon one man, or upon a group of men that makes all the wills of men one. The sovereign has the power to do whatever he deems necessary in order to protect the commonwealth. This means the rights of the people must be transferred to the sovereign in order for the duties of the sovereign to be carried out.

There is two ways to establish this system, either through force or through agreement. According to Hobbes the later is how people rise above the harsh conditions of nature. While the former means that the sovereign assumes control through force of a group of people and if the people fail to resist they must consent. Both serve the same function and both go towards the same ends.

Notice anything oppressive about his idea?
 
Cardinal said:
What facile dodging that is. If you take the position that you should benefit from something without personally agreeing to it, then it's effectively no different than the teenager who argues that he should be able to live rent free with his parents and not have to do any chores. This belief, free of personal responsibility severely diminishes the credibility of your position. If you aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices for your beliefs then don't expect anyone to take them very seriously. And if you can't do that then you are a parasite, pure and simple.

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...

So anyway, do you know which one of those social contracts I apparently agreed to? The feminist one is extremely stupid and most of the others are oppressive. :/
 
MaggieD said:
If you make a promise to someone and they rely on it to their financial detriment, a court may find that your promise was indeed a contract and find you liable for damages. That's the law. What you think it should be is something else again.



When Will a Promise or Statement Be Considered a Binding Contract? - FindLaw

Edit: Re your example of buying a house: To my knowledge, buying and/or selling real estate is the only​ contract that must be in writing to be enforced.
Click to expand...

My problem is this. The law quite frankly is out dated. A contract should be in writing to be enforceable, otherwise how do you know you have a contract? I don't care if its on a fricken napkin, a contract needs to be in writing. Just because I make a statement doesn't mean nor should it be binding. That said I say I am going to do things all the time which I consider binding as part and parcel of my business, but those verbal promises all have a basis is a pre-negotiated ongoing written contract. Quite frankly it is common knowledge that if you wish something to be enforced you should get it in writing, otherwise it doesn't exist. Why any attorney worth their pay couldn't get out of a verbal contract is beyond me. Why anyone would base a financial decision on a verbal promise not already backed by a existing written contract is beyond me and more to the point IMHO absolutely foolish. Please do not take my argument as advocating for asshatery or scumbaggery, but a matter of verbalizing common sense. Like I said I give my word routinely in business, I use my reliability in keeping my word in garnering an excellent reputation of reliability in keeping it, which garners me ongoing profitable business relationships. But that word I give is based always in a existing contract. To do otherwise is foolish. The other thing if the contract not in writing how do you determine what exactly the supposed contract really was, it becomes he said she said. The court for all intents and purposes may as well toss a coin.
 
Cardinal said:
It's that whole social contract thing: we give up our right to deal with dishonest scumbags by putting a bullet in their faces, and instead the government steps in to deal with those scumbags using courts instead. And before you tell me what you personally would like, keep in mind humanity decided to make that contract a looooooong time ago. However it's been enacted over the millennia we've decided as a civilization that having the ruling of courts over personal revenge is way more preferable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lol. Like the guy should not have to pay to help support the child he produced just because he'd prefer to walk away. It's not just a social contract anymore, it's also legally enforced...which sadly really infuriates alot of men.
 
Lursa said:
Yeah, lol. Like the guy should not have to pay to help support the child he produced just because he'd prefer to walk away. It's not just a social contract anymore, it's also legally enforced...which sadly really infuriates alot of men.
Click to expand...

You get to telling me when you have to give birth to children you don't want. Until then, stfu.
 
MaggieD said:
In our legal system, a promise becomes an enforceable contract when one relies on it to their financial detriment.
Click to expand...


Here is the decision, the counts were unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of promise to marry.


Concerning your statement, when one relies on a promise to their detriment, that is known as Detrimental Reliance/Promissory Estoppel, and can be enforceable under certain facts, yes.

Example, Joe is offered a job to transfer to another state, he shells out the cost of moving, etc. When he arrives he is given notice he is no longer given his job promise. Now while that is legal in the employment sense, "generally", in can be the legal basis for a Tort action, as he Relied (reliance) on the promise to his detriment.


https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=35ae8c75-f79a-431e-b2fe-1a8e6e0d3e83
 
MaggieD said:
Edit: Re your example of buying a house: To my knowledge, buying and/or selling real estate is the only​ contract that must be in writing to be enforced.
Click to expand...

The Statute of Frauds outlines this some more and mentions contracts at 500.00 or above, which I knew already.


Statute of frauds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most states have abrogated these doctrines;

2305.29 No civil liability for breach of a promise to marry, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation.

No person shall be liable in civil damages for any breach of a promise to marry, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation, and no person shall be liable in civil damages for seduction of any person eighteen years of age or older who is not incompetent, as defined in section 2111.01 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 06-26-1978
 
lawboy said:
The Statute of Frauds outlines this some more and mentions contracts at 500.00 or above, which I knew already.


Statute of frauds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most states have abrogated these doctrines;

2305.29 No civil liability for breach of a promise to marry, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation.

No person shall be liable in civil damages for any breach of a promise to marry, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation, and no person shall be liable in civil damages for seduction of any person eighteen years of age or older who is not incompetent, as defined in section 2111.01 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 06-26-1978
Click to expand...

This is the most immoral law of the day.

Everything we do is a contract. Friendships and relationships included.

For example, when you take a cat from a pound, you actually sign a contract to provide a lifetime home. So, you not only have a human contract, you effectively have contracted with your cat.

Now, most people are savages and contract or no contract, they will move and throw the cat on the street to die. Nobody enforces these contracts and the cats can't speak for themselves. But, really, this is why I hope there is a god because you (the person who dumped their cat) have grossly violated your contract.

Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, some people think its OK to lie to obtain sex. Ha ha ha. I told the bitch I would marry her., Ha ha. But even when there is no enforcement, it is a violation. So, in those rare cases where fiscal damages can be proven, I have zero sympathy for the liar, the cheater, the breaker of contracts.

Maybe seeing the consequences, barrels of dead cats, caused by the lying humans, has affected my way of thinking about lies. Maybe some of you think its cool, and no big deal.

But I don't agree. This law is immoral.
 
specklebang said:
Everything we do is a contract. .
Click to expand...

If you believe that true in a legal sense, should these contracts have limitations of actions if breached, how long, and for different causes, different limitations of action.
 
lawboy said:
If you believe that true in a legal sense, should these contracts have limitations of actions if breached, how long, and for different causes, different limitations of action.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Why are there BILLIONS of laws? Because each event is different and requires its own definitions. Each event has different background and consequences.

Saying "I love you" to get laid is a contract of little meaning. Saying "I love you. Have my baby. Quit your career" is a contract of much greater meaning.

The best advice I ever got was from one of the worst people I ever met. "Don't make promises you can't keep" she said - and she was right.
 
PirateMk1 said:
My problem is this. The law quite frankly is out dated. A contract should be in writing to be enforceable, otherwise how do you know you have a contract? I don't care if its on a fricken napkin, a contract needs to be in writing. Just because I make a statement doesn't mean nor should it be binding. That said I say I am going to do things all the time which I consider binding as part and parcel of my business, but those verbal promises all have a basis is a pre-negotiated ongoing written contract. Quite frankly it is common knowledge that if you wish something to be enforced you should get it in writing, otherwise it doesn't exist. Why any attorney worth their pay couldn't get out of a verbal contract is beyond me. Why anyone would base a financial decision on a verbal promise not already backed by a existing written contract is beyond me and more to the point IMHO absolutely foolish. Please do not take my argument as advocating for asshatery or scumbaggery, but a matter of verbalizing common sense. Like I said I give my word routinely in business, I use my reliability in keeping my word in garnering an excellent reputation of reliability in keeping it, which garners me ongoing profitable business relationships. But that word I give is based always in a existing contract. To do otherwise is foolish. The other thing if the contract not in writing how do you determine what exactly the supposed contract really was, it becomes he said she said. The court for all intents and purposes may as well toss a coin.
Click to expand...

Especially where there is 'consideration' on both sides, I think verbal contracts should remain enforceable. They are...they are just often hard to prove. But if it can be proven? I'd expect no less from the law.

Consideration:

Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.
Click to expand...

A promise without consideration is not a contract . . . except in those states where breach of promise is enforceable. Courts have ruled, in that case, there need be no consideration.

When you go to your doctor, and he performs a physical, you and he have an implied contract. He will perform the physical; you will pay his reasonable fee. You don't have to sign a formal contract for that to be enforced. When your babysitter watches your kids for three 8-hour days at the $8 an hour rate you promised her . . . and you don't pay her for the third day? You have breached your verbal contract with her.

We'd have pretty complicated lives if verbal contracts were unenforceable.
 
MaggieD said:
We'd have pretty complicated lives if verbal contracts were unenforceable.
Click to expand...

But life is very complicated and all the laws in the world wont prevent people from treating each other like crap.

You can never be totally protected from being taken advantage of and both men and women have plenty of reason to believe that. In business and in relationships, people just need to not rush into things, get to know the people they're dealing with better, and use the best judgement they can. There's no magic wand...just personal responsibility for trying to protect yourself.

I think alot of the responses here are people wanting that guy to be punished...me too but I dont think the law supports the the judge's decision. IMO she did not take nearly enough responsibility for her own decisions.
 
Lursa said:
But life is very complicated and all the laws in the world wont prevent people from treating each other like crap.

You can never be totally protected from being taken advantage of and both men and women have plenty of reason to believe that. In business and in relationships, people just need to not rush into things, get to know the people they're dealing with better, and use the best judgement they can. There's no magic wand...just personal responsibility for trying to protect yourself.

I think alot of the responses here are people wanting that guy to be punished...me too but I dont think the law supports the the judge's decision. IMO she did not take nearly enough responsibility for her own decisions.
Click to expand...

There's a part of me that agrees with you. She decided to give up her career and stay home. She decided to have a child with him before they were married. (They both decided, but, frankly, I put ultimate responsibility on the woman.)

And yet. Breach of promise is against the law in their state. It's kind of end of story. He should have consulted an attorney. There were other ways he could have ended the relationship -- they'd have been ugly, but she probably wouldn't have won a lawsuit.

I don't mind the fact that some states don't let people throw other people away. I would support it the same way if the situation were reversed. There are scum bags in this world. People with no conscience...no empathy. If they step over the line from immoral to illegal? I say, "Let 'em have it." ;)
 
MaggieD said:
Especially where there is 'consideration' on both sides, I think verbal contracts should remain enforceable. They are...they are just often hard to prove. But if it can be proven? I'd expect no less from the law.

Consideration:



A promise without consideration is not a contract . . . except in those states where breach of promise is enforceable. Courts have ruled, in that case, there need be no consideration.

When you go to your doctor, and he performs a physical, you and he have an implied contract. He will perform the physical; you will pay his reasonable fee. You don't have to sign a formal contract for that to be enforced. When your babysitter watches your kids for three 8-hour days at the $8 an hour rate you promised her . . . and you don't pay her for the third day? You have breached your verbal contract with her.

We'd have pretty complicated lives if verbal contracts were unenforceable.
Click to expand...

True. I would tend to agree, however at what point does a verbal promise need to be written down? I would say when it goes beyond the claim you would be able to bring to small claims court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom