re: Ed O'Bannon lawsuit strikes another blow -SIAP

quote:

---

you're creating a hypothetical that literally could not exist in reality, in a country of laws

it's a worthless hypothet that deserves no response accordingly

---

Do you understand how hypos work? You keep deflecting.

Take the same hypo, assume it requires a lump sum payment of a million dollars.

quote:

---

It's intentionally ridiculous to illustrate that your position is ridiculous.

---

it's an impossibility, which is the reason why it's absurd

quote:

---

those risks are also addressed in the "stuff you figure out" as you put it after the fact. that's kind of where this scenario with the NCAA is, and it makes no economic sense to change teh contract

---

Elaborate please. Because as I'm reading this, you just contradicted your position completely.

quote:

---

Because as I'm reading this, you just contradicted your position completely.

---

i was responding to your simplistic view of contracts being about price and quality only

i'm talking about judicial power (or what judicial power should be), in the words you used, and related it to this scenario

there are always pink elephant scenarios in every contract. actually, the attempt to list all the pink elephant scenarios are why these contracts end up so long

quote:

---

i have no problem with this. that business could attempt to enforce that agreement exactly once

do you think a business would really risk its entire existence over a stupid penalty clause? i don't

this is why you look to the market to resolve these issues, and why courts should not interject themselves as godlike figures

---

I disagree with your position here, but I don't wanna argue about contract law anymore.

i have 2 simple questions for you

1. why do you think you (or a court) have the godlike ability to judge whether a contract between 2 private parties (neither of whom are yourself) is reasonable or not? what defect exists between these parties, in your eyes? is this defect consistent among all persons? is there a class of person who is more naturally defective? do you believe that in a system of private parties engaging in private agreements, there can be a single standard of perceived "fairness"?

2. why do you believe that the courts should have the ability to disrupt any contract for any reason they create to shown a perceived unfairness? at what point can we expect a stable canon of contract law?

quote:

---

i was responding to your simplistic view of contracts being about price and quality only

---

Not a view at all A statement of law.

The UCC takes a very elastic, practical and common sense approach to contracts for the sale of goods. Agreement on all terms are not required. Agreement on price and quantity is required.

quote:

---

1. what defect exists between these parties, in your eyes? is this defect consistent among all persons? is there a class of person who is more naturally defective? do you believe that in a system of private parties engaging in private agreements, there can be a single standard of perceived "fairness"?

---

The contract includes terms that are:
(a) contemplated by one party
(b) unread by the other party (and would never be read by the other party)

The class of "the other party" is all people who would not stop their car at the gate of the parking garage to negotiate the terms and conditions on the back of the ticket with the guy in the booth. Which is to say all reasonable human beings.

quote:

---

2. why do you believe that the courts should have the ability to disrupt any contract for any reason they create to shown a perceived unfairness? at what point can we expect a stable canon of contract law?

---

I do not believe that the courts should have the ability to disrupt any contract for any reason they create to shown a perceived unfairness.