Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

smyjpmu

Regulars
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

smyjpmu's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. If you relied on the promise (went to great lengths to invite family, friends, and coworkers to a party and paid $1000 to an entertainer to host the party), then yes, for the same reason as any other breach of contract.
  2. That's not really a duel to the death, then. And it also raises the question of why such a rule can morally be in place. Assisted suicide can continue even after the person being killed goes unconscious, can't it?
  3. Okay, I know my resignation has been accepted, so this is just out of curiosity. If a clown doesn't show up for my kid's birthday party, are there any actual damages?
  4. What if one party goes unconscious and therefore cannot halt the process? Would a finishing kill shot be murder?
  5. "I, S, agree to meet at OK Corral at high noon on October 26, 2010, for the purpose of engaging in a duel. In consideration for this promise, you, DO, also agree to meet at OK Corral at high noon on October 26, 2010, for the same purpose. The duel shall be conducted according to Roberts Rules of Dueling Volume 17. Both parties promise not to back out of said duel until at least one shot has been fired. Both parties have gone to great lengths to invite family, friends, and coworkers to attend this momentous event, all of whom will be most disappointed if the event does not occur. As such, parties agree that damages for breach are difficult or impossible to determine. Therefore parties agree to liquidated damages, which they acknowledge and agree are reasonable estimates of actual damages, as set forth as follows: Should a party fail to show up for the duel, and not reschedule within 5 business days, breaching party shall pay a lump sum of $1000 to other party as liquidated damages." If you don't agree, this is in the form of a contract (albeit a very poorly and hastily written one), which would be valid were dueling legal (and Roberts Rules of Dueling Volume 17 not something I just made up), and that it is in the nature of a "contract to duel", then I resign. It's really not that important to me, because after hearing this latest explanation I think we're in substantial agreement on what is/is not a contract (though perhaps not on what is/is not a "contract to duel").
  6. Because rights are principles. They are moral concepts. Trading rights would be like trading math equations. Great. A right is a freedom of action. "It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." If you want to die, and someone helps you, there is no compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men. Whether or not that applies to a duel, I don't know. The difference between a duel and assisted suicide is obvious. In assisted suicide, the person wants to die. In a duel, they don't. Giving permission to take one's life is not equivalent to giving the other person a right to your life, no. Giving the other person a right to your life would be closer to slavery. You mean equivalent? I'm not convinced either. Depends on the duel. A duel can also be "one shot each". It need not be to the death. Should a duel not to the death be treated like a boxing match?
  7. Doesn't that depend on the details of the contract? How can you say there is no consideration without even seeing the contract itself?
  8. That's gotta be a strawman or something. What is the actual "scheme" being put in place?
  9. I wouldn't characterize it that way. You can't trade rights, can you? You can trade covenants not to sue, but that only covers civil law, not criminal law. I think David has a great point that a contract is not what would make a duel legal, even if I do disagree with him that a contract to duel would, were duels legal, be possible. Think of a contract to engage in a boxing match. The contract doesn't say "I give you permission to punch me in exchange for you giving me permission to punch you". The details of the contract state that so-and-so will show up at whatever location, engage in a boxing match under certain rules, etc. There are surely waivers of liability, but that is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. The contract is not what creates the exemption under criminal law for battery. The permission is what creates it. However, there generally is a contract, and I see no reason there couldn't be such a contract for a duel, if duels were legal. If duels are legal and you contract to duel, then you don't show up to the duel, the other party to the contract can sue for damages, not kill you. The agreement is "I'll show up at X location and engage in a duel", not "I'll let you try to kill me". If duels were legal, in all probability there would be a market for television events covering the duel. Surely there would be contracts involved, if not between the two participants then between the participants and the producer of the event.
  10. But you have promised to explain why an agreement to duel is not a contract, and you have so far failed to do so. Is an agreement to fight a boxing match a contract? If so, why not an agreement to duel?
  11. Is it obvious to you that recognizing humans rights is in our own self-interest as individuals? Is it obvious to you that recognizing chimps rights is not in our own self-interest as individuals?
  12. Necessity is a defense under common law, which is to say nothing of whether or not it ought to be. I'm not sure, but it's possibly only a defense under criminal law, so there would still be a civil case for damages.
  13. Yes, there is. But your hypothetical seems to be more of the former scenario than the latter. I honestly can't figure out what you mean by that. Okay but you ignored all the other bits of required omniscience required to make your scenario realistic. It may be the case that the only way I can get the water is by killing the man, but how am I supposed to *know* that the only way I can get the water is by killing the man?
  14. In principle? Again, are you talking about what the law is, or what the law should be? I know you didn't say courts always force specific performance. But you said they always can force specific performance (by the definition of "contract"), and I assume you mean they always have the legal ability to force specific performance. Specific performance is extremely rare. In the vast majority of cases, courts will not impose an order of specific performance. If dueling were legal, a court could certainly award damages for breach of contract. Just like they can award damages for any other breach of contract. Yes, they wouldn't order specific performance, but they almost never award specific performance. If you enter into a contract to fight a boxing match, and you don't show up for the match, is the court going to order you into the ring? No? Well does that mean it's not a contract? On the other hand, the contract is not what would, under your argument, create the permission to kill the other person. If I understand your argument correctly, it would be perfectly legal to get into an argument, call the other person out, and go into the (privately owned) alleyway in the back and shoot it up. No contract would be necessary, but if dueling is legal, of course a contract to duel must be. Nanite1018 gives sex as an example of a non-contractual agreement where either party has the right to back out at any time. Should a contract for sex be invalid? Should it be unenforceable? Are contracts to participate in a hard-core porno unenforceable today? "Specific performance is ordered by courts only in rare cases in which the subject matter of the contract is unique, making it difficult to put a monetary amount on the damage incurred as a result of the breach. Specific performance is not awarded in personal service contracts. In the previous example, the court would not order the original roofer to complete the job." http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/contbus.html If you want to argue that courts *should* be able to award specific performance for any and all contracts, that's one thing. But saying that, by definition, "a contract must be something that a court can force either party to live up to", is just plain wrong. In "rare cases in which the subject matter of the contract is unique, making it difficult to put a monetary amount on the damage incurred as a result of the breach", courts can force either party to live up to the contract. But in the vast majority of cases, all they can do is award damages for breach (and only actual damages at that).
  15. Wait a second. What? I thought before you were talking about what you think the law ought to be. You actually believe this is a description of what the law is? Ever hear of "efficient breach"? The concept of efficient breach wouldn't exist if courts could force specific performance of any contract (by definition).
×
×
  • Create New...