3 ms·

You're still confusing a contract with rights. Contracts are about an exchange of obligations but they don't override one's rights. Shylock v Antonio does not s

You're still confusing a contract with rights. Contracts are about an exchange of obligations but they don't override one's rights. Shylock v Antonio does not set a precedent. You can give up certain rights under certain circumstances. For example, a compromise agreement involves giving up certain rights under employment law in exchange for money. However, you must receive advice from a suitably qualified and independent adviser, or the compromise agreement is invalid - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 ObIANAL

SilasX 11y ago
Every taking on of an obligation is equivalently expressible as the waiver of a right. As before, trading $1 for an apple can be expressed as "Alice waives the right to the apple and Bob te right to the $1." It would make no sense to say "Alice's rights are being violated because she was denied use of her apple!" What I think is happening is that you're only calling some rights waivers as rights waivers, which makes it hard to isolate which transactions you find unacceptable and why. Could you maybe flesh that out? I've tried to get satisfactory answers on this when it comes up, but to no avail.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  UK employment law doesn't grant anyone rights to apples.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. If you then trade the rights to those apples away, you don't get a bunch of judges tut-tutting the person who received them, lecturing him about how you have the right to those apples. If you have a right, you should be able to trade that right. A right you cannot trade should more properly be called an obligation. If there are good reasons not to allow trading away a right, you should articulate those reasons, as I asked originally. It is not sufficient to simply cite their existence.
    - jackgavigan 11y ago
      > If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. In that case, please link to the relevant legislation.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        You need a link to prove that the UK has property rights? To avoid dancing around the point: What you're calling a right, I'm calling a (legally) inalienable right. But let's abstract away from the terminology: There are cases where the law says, "people can't legally do X to you". I call those "rights". In some cases, "A", that's followed by "... unless you consent." In some cases, "B", that's followed by "... irrespective of any expression of consent you give [1]". If a right is infringed on, it matters greatly whether it's type A or B (and whether consent was given). Simply telling me they had the right, does not resolve it. But even if it's in B, you need to justify why type B rights ("inalienable") should exist at all, which I'm not convinced of. All the purported benefits of B rights would better be solved by transparency or waiting periods, not simply demonizing people who make the transaction as if "everyone understands why that's bad ... right?" [2] Remember, a justification for why B should exist needs to explain why it's bad even though this is what both parties ostensibly want. (It's kinda scary that everyone I pose the question to, can't give an answer in their own words, or misunderstands the question.) [1] "and if you get some material benefit in return for expressing such consent, the person who gave you that is a moron who deserves to be taken advantage of". [2] If you want to know what my confusion feels like, imagine that your friend were all writing a sob story about how sympathetic character Bob had all his apples taken from him, "which he earned for himself". You then find out that Bob actually sold the apples and get a stern lecture that "no, his apples are an inalienable right: he can't sell them".
        jackgavigan 11y ago
        > You need a link to prove that the UK has property rights? Hey, you're the one who brought it up! In the UK, your contract of employment cannot take away rights you have by law. So if, for example, you have a contract which states you are only entitled to two weeks' paid holiday per year when, by law, all full-time employees are entitled to 28 days' paid holiday per year, this part of your contract is void and does not apply. The right you have under law (to 28 days' holiday in this case) applies instead.

SilasX 11y ago

Every taking on of an obligation is equivalently expressible as the waiver of a right. As before, trading $1 for an apple can be expressed as "Alice waives the right to the apple and Bob te right to the $1." It would make no sense to say "Alice's rights are being violated because she was denied use of her apple!" What I think is happening is that you're only calling some rights waivers as rights waivers, which makes it hard to isolate which transactions you find unacceptable and why. Could you maybe flesh that out? I've tried to get satisfactory answers on this when it comes up, but to no avail.

jackgavigan 11y ago
UK employment law doesn't grant anyone rights to apples.
- SilasX 11y ago
  If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. If you then trade the rights to those apples away, you don't get a bunch of judges tut-tutting the person who received them, lecturing him about how you have the right to those apples. If you have a right, you should be able to trade that right. A right you cannot trade should more properly be called an obligation. If there are good reasons not to allow trading away a right, you should articulate those reasons, as I asked originally. It is not sufficient to simply cite their existence.
  - jackgavigan 11y ago
    > If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. In that case, please link to the relevant legislation.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      You need a link to prove that the UK has property rights? To avoid dancing around the point: What you're calling a right, I'm calling a (legally) inalienable right. But let's abstract away from the terminology: There are cases where the law says, "people can't legally do X to you". I call those "rights". In some cases, "A", that's followed by "... unless you consent." In some cases, "B", that's followed by "... irrespective of any expression of consent you give [1]". If a right is infringed on, it matters greatly whether it's type A or B (and whether consent was given). Simply telling me they had the right, does not resolve it. But even if it's in B, you need to justify why type B rights ("inalienable") should exist at all, which I'm not convinced of. All the purported benefits of B rights would better be solved by transparency or waiting periods, not simply demonizing people who make the transaction as if "everyone understands why that's bad ... right?" [2] Remember, a justification for why B should exist needs to explain why it's bad even though this is what both parties ostensibly want. (It's kinda scary that everyone I pose the question to, can't give an answer in their own words, or misunderstands the question.) [1] "and if you get some material benefit in return for expressing such consent, the person who gave you that is a moron who deserves to be taken advantage of". [2] If you want to know what my confusion feels like, imagine that your friend were all writing a sob story about how sympathetic character Bob had all his apples taken from him, "which he earned for himself". You then find out that Bob actually sold the apples and get a stern lecture that "no, his apples are an inalienable right: he can't sell them".
      - jackgavigan 11y ago
        > You need a link to prove that the UK has property rights? Hey, you're the one who brought it up! In the UK, your contract of employment cannot take away rights you have by law. So if, for example, you have a contract which states you are only entitled to two weeks' paid holiday per year when, by law, all full-time employees are entitled to 28 days' paid holiday per year, this part of your contract is void and does not apply. The right you have under law (to 28 days' holiday in this case) applies instead.