#Contract law

[legalandnotease]

No, The Sokovia Accords could not "just be changed"

We need to talk about this.

Tony Stark fans are very keen on repeating the claim Tony made in Captain America: Civil War that the Avengers could simply sign the Accords and then get them changed to make them more acceptable at a later point.

Play ball now, negotiate later.

Sounds reasonable right?

Except from a legal perspective this is patent nonsense.

Anybody who has ever had to sign a contract or legal document, or indeed any lawyer could tell you that you it is next to impossible to make changes after the fact. i.e after signing.

You read the contract and you make changes before signing: otherwise that's it. Once you sign you are obligated to abide by the terms of the contract in every point.

Now, there are certain very limited circumstances where you can change a contract after signing, but these are few and far between. It also takes time, money and a lot of legal wrangling. It is a nightmare.

This is why, at the risk of repeating myself, you read the law or contract, and you ask a lawyer to make changes before you sign. Even if this process takes weeks or months because you do not want to be bound to the terms of a contract which may negatively impact you.

What Tony was saying was bullshit, and he knew it. He had dealt with contracts before, and knew how they worked. He knew they couldn't "sign now and change later" so he lied.

Just like he lied about getting Bucky into a psych ward. According to a deleted scene, Bucky had already been sentenced to extadition, and Tony could not simply reverse that judgement. Besides, T'Challa was not going to stand for some white dude telling him what he could do.

[nolshru]

eh, I always see this disclaimer, so even though it absolutely goes without saying - none of this is legal advice, it is just a bored law student talking about something interesting, and much of this has a high likelihood to be incorrect, don't listen to me for any reason other than entertainment pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepl

so, I was reading the Discord terms of service when I noticed the "don't do anything else that's illegal"

and like, "'anything else that's illegal' means 'anything else that's illegal'" is just... really silly - this is completely unenforceable

so, how do we define illegality? for most legal systems its really easy, all crimes are statutory in most of them, and actually beyond that, most of them have criminal codes, so it can be easily resolved for a country like Germany, or France, or Italy by saying "for the purposes of this document, 'anything else that's illegal' refers to any offense listed in the criminal code of the user's country"

this doesn't *really* work, though, because many countries, particularly those in common law systems, such as England and Wales, the USA, or Australia, do not have criminal codes (though, there are some common law systems with criminal codes, like Canada (maybe including quebec? honestly don't know, it doesn't use the same legal system as elsewhere in Canada), these are rare), common law's law based on precedent means that a good deal of crimes aren't even statutory to any real extent (oh, just for the sake of it, and me having this knowledge, Scotland doesn't have a criminal code - this is just relevant because it's both a civil and common law system, so ye, unsure about any other hybrid system (oh, Quebec is back, hi Quebec))

this term remains unenforceable, really, like, what constitutes illegality just isn't defined, so, what would some alternatives be? (all of these will be relevant to Scotland, because I know Scotland best)

Option 1: For the purposes of this document, "anything else that is illegal" refers to statutory offenses not otherwise described in this document

this doesn't include all crimes, but it includes a lot of the most serious crimes, such as not reporting how many female salmon you have in your fish farm, not keeping records on fish sales for 3 years, or catching a sea fish that are the wrong size (I tried to find specifics, but Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 was very vague and I really don't want to keep looking through fish related legislation) - I think this is probably my preferred solution, but like, it really does not apply to every law, common law is a huge aspect of how criminality is described in Scotland - notably, the writings of Baron Hume are excluded, which like, until fairly recently was the source of crimes as serious as rape and serious sexual assault, so like, yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution, there's probably other cases like that

Option 2: For the purposes of this document, "anything else that is illegal" refers to any behaviour that Discord considers to be illegal

this works, but it gives Discord uh... a lot of power that I wouldn't want it to have - surprised this *isn't* what Discord says, but like, I'm glad it isn't

Option 3: For the purposes of this document, "anything else that is illegal" refers to <list of things that are considered illegal>

this also works, but I think it's weaker and less effective than option 1, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, after all, if you don't include something like "not informing customers as to the origin of fish sold", then you are impliedly giving permission to users that they are allowed to do that, so I really don't like this solution

Option 4: keep as is

I like this solution 2, sure it's unenforceable, but like, so are arbitration clauses and those are everywhere - even if you can't enforce a term in a contract, it's still a term in a contract, and people aren't just going to breach it because they can, it's like, fine and stuff

anyways, that was fun, bye

[alex-kazbrekkersimp]

As someone who's like learning law and contract law I was. Doing some work on the subject on contracts being void due to circumstances and throught would inej's contract with heleen be void? Becuse i can't rember if she signed it or if I'm imagining that part but I don't think inej when she was taken would have known how to read nor speak kertch let alone understood what was happening meaning was inej's contract void?

[dosesofcommonsense]

The importance of contracts and reading contracts.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

Lawyering through fandoms: Counteroffers

Monkey D. Luffy wants to buy a ship for his crew, the Straw Hats. He comes across a ship he likes and walks up to the merchant. Luffy asks how much to buy the ship.

Merchant: “That’ll be 30 million berries” (OFFER)

Luffy: “That’s too much! I’m not paying that! How about I buy the ship at 10 million?” (COUNTER-OFFER)

Merchant: “No! Then no sale.”

Luffy: “Aw man, fine! I’ll buy it at the original price.”

Merchant: “The offer no longer exists! Goodbye!”

Unfortunately for Luffy, he can no longer follow through with the original offer since he gave the merchant a counter-offer of 10 million. A counter-offer is both a rejection of the original offer and a new offer. Once the original offer is rejected, that’s it. It’s up to the merchant to either accept Luffy’s offer or reject Luffy’s offer and make a new one.

[thekimspoblog]

The first time I knew I wanted to be a lawyer, I was watching The Monkees with my mom. It was the episode where Peter sells his soul to the devil for a harp. The episode ends with Peter winning the case in divine court by proving he already could play the harp, and therefore the devil traded him nothing for his soul. And even as a kid I'm like "Hang on! Why is the case suddenly about Peter's ability to play the harp? The contract was "1 non-magical harp for 1 Tork soul". Peter got to keep the harp at the end; he basically cheated the devil. Which is cool and all but it's like the episode's writing team changed halfway through the episode. I'm sure other people on tumblr have noticed this, but I just think it's funny what a glaring plot hole that is.

Maybe send a tweet to Legal Eagle asking him to review this episode. And try to earnestly defend the way Mike (who I think was representing Peter?) blatantly changes the subject matter of the agreement.

[xalatariel]

waugh i miss blorboposting. why must i be in law school. i fear i cannot ethically blorbo post about Justice Michael Kirby

[zot3-flopped]

That alarrytale blog goes into another dimension of obsession and delusion. She goes on and on about unbreakable contracts reaching into infinity, without ever pausing to think what a contract is. A contract is only of any use to either side if there are consequences in law if it is broken without agreement.

Does she honestly think a large corporation could take someone to court on the basis that ‘ We want these gay people to appear straight and will thwart their careers if they admit to not being straight or to being in a relationship with each other. ‘ You can’t legally enforce a contract that is against the law, that is a nonsense. Presumably these early yet lingering ‘ contracts’ that she is so sure of were written in the UK - under the UK Equality Act 2010 you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation including heterosexuality . Can’t see it flying in the US system either.

Business and employment contacts can include behaviour clauses, such as those causing the company to be brought into disrepute, but these are for gross misconduct, illegal acts, extreme behaviour safety and safeguarding, inability or reluctance to perform.

There are certainly going to be expectations from management that performers abide by in their early days and then chafe against and that is what causes a lot of band breakups or change of management - but the idea that very wealthy adult men are still under some extreme micro control about their personal life is bizarre. Maybe she is getting mixed up with the very different subject of recording and music publishing rights.

And the babygate nonsense about a corporation knowingly planning and involving a child in some kind of paternity fraud - as if the corporate lawyers would let even a sniff of that pass.

100%. All corporate contracts are run past lawyers and anything to do with suppression of sexuality would be thrown out.

[killj0y616]

Watching "Dashcon: An Extensive Oral History" and the only thing I've learned is "Extensively review contracts before signing", "Welcome To Night Vale did nothing wrong," as well as "Doug Jones is the Doctor & the cringe was so strong that he was summoned to provide reassuring hugs"

[lloydlawcollege]

An Overview of Contract Law, India

Explore the fundamentals of Contract Law as defined by the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This blog offers a comprehensive overview of the Act, detailing its key provisions and principles that govern legal agreements in India. Learn about the essentials of forming, enforcing, and interpreting contracts, including essential elements like offer, acceptance, consideration, and legality. Whether you're a student, professional, or someone interested in legal frameworks, this guide will help you understand how contracts are managed and regulated in India.

[doonthestair]

turns out you can burn the everliving fuck out of eggs

[eisbecherovka]

She perform contractual obligations until I unilaterally discharge

[nolshru]

this user accepts no liability for any injury or loss sustained while on their page - though they promise to make it fun

[colorfuloddity]

Behold the STUPIDEST fucking take, on a post about actors reading through the Tentative Agreement SAG-AFTRA negotiated for them and which they're all voting on until Dec 5.

Folks, READ YOUR FUCKING CONTRACTS. READ YOUR LEASE AGREEMENT. READ YOUR FUCKING EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.

Yes, there is a learning curve. Yes, there is Legal Language ("Legalese"). Yes, you will have to spend time on this. YES, YOU CAN DO IT, AND IT WILL BE FUCKING WORTH IT.

But anyone saying reading contracts or ANY other legal document is a waste of time and/or implying this is so because "no one knows what they're reading" is a bad actor and that's a horseshit take.

You can learn how to understand this shit. Anyone who tries to undermine that is either a fucking idiot themself, or they're trying to leave you open to exploitation. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd theorize this dipshit dog trainer is a Russian PsyOp, but no, people legitimately are that stupid.

Also, you can ABSOLUTELY both read and understand AND LISTEN TO MORE EDUCATED VOICES THAN YOUR OWN. That's how literally the entirely of academia AND LEGAL BULLSHIT WORKS. Lawyers talk to other lawyers, they read law blogs, they look for precedent, BECAUSE LAYWERS ARE SMART FUCKING PEOPLE AS A DEMOGRAPHIC, AND ALL OF THEM KNOW THAT. Jesus.

[haunteddragonssun]

Why am I the dumbass that thought contract law would be a good field to try and get into????

[sorensensmithllp]

Need a Contract Lawyer? Sorensen Smith LLP is Here to Help

Contracts play a vital role in both business and personal dealings, but what happens when a dispute arises? Whether it's a breach of contract, unfair terms, or misinterpretation, having a knowledgeable contract lawyer by your side can make all the difference.

At Sorensen Smith LLP, our skilled legal team, led by Lawrence Smith and Daniel Sorensen, specializes in commercial and civil litigation in Chilliwack and Langley, BC. We understand the complexities of contract law and work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests.

🔹 Facing a contract dispute? We can help. 🔹 Need legal advice on a business agreement? We’ve got you covered. 🔹 Looking for experienced litigators? We’re here for you.

Get the expert legal support you need from Sorensen Smith LLP: 

🔗 Meet our team 🔗 Contact us today