3 ms·

For the love of common sense, law does not function on feel. Contracts are objective. What you describe would change the meaning of contract according to feel o

For the love of common sense, law does not function on feel. Contracts are objective. What you describe would change the meaning of contract according to feel of a party or even 3rd parties.

Avshalom 10y ago
>>law does not function on feel it absolutely does. that's why legal systems are full of places where people are allowed to use their own discretion.
- wav-part 10y ago
  Which leads to loss of trust in Court System. Uncertainity in judgement is something to minimize.
  - Mathnerd314 10y ago
    Not really, particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Similarly in contract law, the ideal contract is the one you sign and then never look at again. If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. And also legal certainty tends to decrease over time: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=facultyworkingpapers http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
    - wav-part 10y ago
      > particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Its uncertainity intended by law itself. All abided parties are most likely comfortable with it. No one would rely on this certainity. Put it simply, You cant expect more certainity than the contract/law itself defines. > If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. The loss of trust is exactly the scenarios where contracts are most useful. The contract would most likely have cancellation clause, which means it should terminate expectedly without any suprises assuming contract itself is objective (That is, It should not grant uncertainity like criminal laws). So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract.
      - Avshalom 10y ago
        >> So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract. Which has no bearing on whether or not it has/would-be-ruled-to-have unconscionable terms.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Read up on this famous case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furn....
- wav-part 10y ago
  Hence Private Arbitration/Investor-state dispute settlement.

For the love of common sense, law does not function on feel. Contracts are objective. What you describe would change the meaning of contract according to feel of a party or even 3rd parties.

Avshalom 10y ago

>>law does not function on feel it absolutely does. that's why legal systems are full of places where people are allowed to use their own discretion.

wav-part 10y ago
Which leads to loss of trust in Court System. Uncertainity in judgement is something to minimize.
- Mathnerd314 10y ago
  Not really, particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Similarly in contract law, the ideal contract is the one you sign and then never look at again. If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. And also legal certainty tends to decrease over time: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=facultyworkingpapers http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
  - wav-part 10y ago
    > particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Its uncertainity intended by law itself. All abided parties are most likely comfortable with it. No one would rely on this certainity. Put it simply, You cant expect more certainity than the contract/law itself defines. > If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. The loss of trust is exactly the scenarios where contracts are most useful. The contract would most likely have cancellation clause, which means it should terminate expectedly without any suprises assuming contract itself is objective (That is, It should not grant uncertainity like criminal laws). So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract.
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      >> So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract. Which has no bearing on whether or not it has/would-be-ruled-to-have unconscionable terms.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Read up on this famous case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furn....

wav-part 10y ago
Hence Private Arbitration/Investor-state dispute settlement.