• 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

PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. That would be prudent. And, I'm sure, that's likely 99.9% of cases -- enforcing a written contract in regular court. Small claims court, as you point out, is something else again. But me? Probably $1,000 and I want it written down.
 
Cardinal said:
You don't think breach of contract should be a suable offense?
Click to expand...

You can only sue on breach of contract to the extent of damages. Any equity in the house, she should be able to sue for (half), and she can sue for equitable division of assets, barring a prenup or other stipulations.

To think you can assign a punitive value on "he'd rather go balls deep on a skinnier chick" is laughable. Crap like that is why men are fools for entering marriages with women. Full risk, minimal reward.
 
Henrin said:
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. :/
Click to expand...

You agreed to society when you turned 18 and decided to remain within it. One of those trappings of society is civil litigation which practically all of civilization has decided is a superior alternative to personal revenge. It's not going away, so either a)choose the existence of civil litigation by remaining within society, or b)go off the grid.
 
Gipper said:
You can only sue on breach of contract to the extent of damages. Any equity in the house, she should be able to sue for (half), and she can sue for equitable division of assets, barring a prenup or other stipulations.

To think you can assign a punitive value on "he'd rather go balls deep on a skinnier chick" is laughable. Crap like that is why men are fools for entering marriages with women. Full risk, minimal reward.
Click to expand...

He didn't assume full risk, and nobody forced him to lead someone else to think he would take care of her while withholding the fact that he was already married.
 
Cardinal said:
He didn't assume full risk, and nobody forced him to lead someone else to think he would take care of her while withholding the fact that he was already married.
Click to expand...

That falls under the realm of a "gift", and you cannot sue for breach of contract on a gift.
 
Gipper said:
That falls under the realm of a "gift", and you cannot sue for breach of contract on a gift.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that it's a "gift"?
 
Cardinal said:
Where did you get the idea that it's a "gift"?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a bilateral agreement, and no exchange of goods or services were rendered. That, in legal terms, is a "gift".

A promise of a "gift" is a unilateral agreement, and legally voidable upon any conditions desired by the gifter.
 
Gipper said:
It wasn't a bilateral agreement, and no exchange of goods or services were rendered. That, in legal terms, is a "gift".

A promise of a "gift" is a unilateral agreement, and legally voidable upon any conditions desired by the gifter.
Click to expand...

Not according the article: she agreed to leave her job and state and move in with him while she raised his/their children, while he would earn the money. And there was a ring.
 
Cardinal said:
Not according the article: she agreed to leave her job and state and move in with him while she raised his/their children, while he would earn the money. And there was a ring.
Click to expand...

Immaterial. Her agreeing to leave her job plays absolutely no basis upon the case. That is considered a voluntary action, because it was performed by her, under her own volition. On top of that, if she claims that he made any sort of "promise" in that regard, it's heresay and not admissable. There is no foundation of proof, unless he signed something that stated his desire to provide for her if she performed the specific action of quitting her job.
 
Gipper said:
Immaterial. Her agreeing to leave her job plays absolutely no basis upon the case. That is considered a voluntary action, because it was performed by her, under her own volition. On top of that, if she claims that he made any sort of "promise" in that regard, it's heresay and not admissable. There is no foundation of proof, unless he signed something that stated his desire to provide for her if she performed the specific action of quitting her job.
Click to expand...

Saying it's immaterial and that it was her voluntary decision opens up every victim of scams/fraud to zero restitution under the premise that they went into the deal of their own volition. If you, as a libertarian, agree that's kosher, then you'll be on the losing side because society will never agree to that. That goes right up there with "government out of marriage" and "abolish taxes now." And in civil litigation a court is allowed to weigh the facts of the matter and deem that there was such an agreement. Which they did.
 
Cardinal said:
Saying it's immaterial and that it was her voluntary decision opens up every victim of scams/fraud to zero restitution under the premise that they went into the deal of their own volition. If you, as a libertarian, agree that's kosher, then you'll be on the losing side because society will never agree to that. That goes right up there with "government out of marriage" and "abolish taxes now." And in civil litigation a court is allowed to weigh the facts of the matter and deem that there was such an agreement. Which they did.
Click to expand...

Every relationship has risks. You can't legislate them out. Well, apparently now you can, but I'm hoping that his challenge will overturn this absurd ruling.

The simple fact is that the courts are making a hell of a lot of assumptions, unless there are tangible facts and evidence not being released to the public. I'm half tempted to go onto WestLaw and figure it out personally.

These courts are setting an awful precedent. It's already designed to screw men over. This just makes it worse.

This case should fall under simple caveat emptor.
 
Cardinal said:
You agreed to society when you turned 18 and decided to remain within it. One of those trappings of society is civil litigation which practically all of civilization has decided is a superior alternative to personal revenge. It's not going away, so either a)choose the existence of civil litigation by remaining within society, or b)go off the grid.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your notions on agreement? You do not agree to be ruled by merely not moving. The idea of it is absurd. You might as well say I agreed because I was born. It makes just as much sense really.
 
Henrin said:
Where are you getting your notions on agreement? You do not agree to be ruled by merely not moving. The idea of it is absurd. You might as well say I agreed because I was born. It makes just as much sense really.
Click to expand...

It's a mixture of communism and pro-Stasi rule.

Appease the all-knowing eye of Sauron.
 
Henrin said:
Where are you getting your notions on agreement? You do not agree to be ruled by merely not moving. The idea of it is absurd. You might as well say I agreed because I was born. It makes just as much sense really.
Click to expand...

"Hey man, I never asked to be born!" :lol:
 
Gipper said:
It's a mixture of communism and pro-Stasi rule.

Appease the all-knowing eye of Sauron.
Click to expand...

Civil litigation (which is what Henri and I were talking about) existed since the beginnings of civilization, so either civil litigation isn't communism or communism invented a time machine and set itself up at the beginning of human history.
 
Cardinal said:
Civil litigation (which is what Henri and I were talking about) existed since the beginnings of civilization, so either civil litigation isn't communism or communism invented a time machine and set itself up at the beginning of human history.
Click to expand...

Early civilization was, indeed, communist by design.
 
Gipper said:
Early civilization was, indeed, communist by design.
Click to expand...

And mid and late history, apparently. Seriously, I'm just curious, is there even a civilization without civil litigation? And just so we're a hundred percent clear on what I mean: one party has a grievance with another party and takes it to an impartial court or judge where they determine the outcome.
 
clownboy said:
Guess GA doesn't have common law marriage otherwise he'd be on the hook for half of everything and he'd be moving not her. They set up home as a family and she kept the covenant, he didn't, he should pay through the nose.
Click to expand...

he shouldn't be paying her a damn except child support. She was not forced to move in or quit her job, the courts can't fix stupid no matter how hard they try
 
Cardinal said:
And mid and late history, apparently. Seriously, I'm just curious, is there even a civilization without civil litigation? And just so we're a hundred percent clear on what I mean: one party has a grievance with another party and takes it to an impartial court or judge where they determine the outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that any tribe who didn't engage in martial law had something akin to that - of course, it may not be the best way to go. Ever split a child in half for each parent?

The main difference back then is, probably, it was much more difficult to gain evidence. Today, for most reasonable complaints, gathering evidence to support a case is easy. I have never heard of any thriving civilization basing ownership on claims and conjecture.
 
Cardinal said:
"Hey man, I never asked to be born!" :lol:
Click to expand...

Wait..so we consent to your rules after birth without agreement, but we don't consent to being born without agreement?? WTF? Do you notice anything weird about your argument?
 
Gipper said:
I'm sure that any tribe who didn't engage in martial law had something akin to that - of course, it may not be the best way to go. Ever split a child in half for each parent?

The main difference back then is, probably, it was much more difficult to gain evidence. Today, for most reasonable complaints, gathering evidence to support a case is easy. I have never heard of any thriving civilization basing ownership on claims and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Point being, civil litigation is everywhere, and has been everywhere since at least the dawn of writing when a code of laws was formalized. And of course for god only knows how many tens of thousands of years I'm sure members of tribes would bring a grievance to the chief and the chief would either say stfu or he would make the other pay the ten ears of corn he owed. And that was preferable because it was either that or watch the tribe tear itself to pieces over the stupidest nonsense. Point being...civil litigation, love it or hate it, executed properly or poorly, is a cornerstone of civilization and it's going nowhere.
 
Henrin said:
Wait..so we consent to your rules after birth without agreement, but we don't consent to being born without agreement?? WTF? Do you notice anything weird about your argument?
Click to expand...

If you don't like civil litigation, move to that country that doesn't have it. You know, um....that one.
 
Cardinal said:
Point being, civil litigation is everywhere, and has been everywhere since at least the dawn of writing when a code of laws was formalized. And of course for god only knows how many tens of thousands of years I'm sure members of tribes would bring a grievance to the chief and the chief would either say stfu or he would make the other pay the ten ears of corn he owed. And that was preferable because it was either that or watch the tribe tear itself to pieces over the stupidest nonsense. Point being...civil litigation, love it or hate it, executed properly or poorly, is a cornerstone of civilization and it's going nowhere.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with civil litigation. I have a problem with one that strips rights and rewards whiners. In my court, the squeaky wheel doesn't necessarily get the grease.
 
Gipper said:
I don't have a problem with civil litigation. I have a problem with one that strips rights and rewards whiners. In my court, the squeaky wheel doesn't necessarily get the grease.
Click to expand...

That's purely rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom