5 ms·

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold co

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.

chrstphrhrt 7y ago
But you can't contract to do something illegal, and contracts must have consideration ("this for that"). Not sure what their test for excessiveness was. Reminds me of predatory lending rules like charging more than X% interest is excessive.
Heliosmaster 7y ago
Not really. I can't contract you to do something illegal for me (e.g. kill somebody, even me!). Now, if you are saying that these kind of contracts SHOULD be valid, that's another thing but that's not the case at the moment (and rightly so, imo)
- kazinator 7y ago
  The validity of hit contracts should probably be upheld in the following way: the contractee must pay the amount (in addition to whatever penalties they face), but that money is seized. It could be put into a fund that helps victims' families.
Tsarbomb 7y ago
This is such a fantastically American point of view.
- geebee 7y ago
  I believe it is not the point of view of US based contract law.
- gbacon 7y ago
  It derives from another: MYOB.
geebee 7y ago
I took a semester of contract law, though I am not a lawyer either. I believe what you write is not accurate. I vaguely remember a case about someone who sold a refrigerator for four times it’s retail value to a low income couple, collected three times the value, and then sued for the remainder. The court would not enforce further payment. However I believe it would not reverse what was already paid either. I probably have a lot about this wrong but I recall the professor saying “if that’s he bargain, that’s the bargain!” Is not a good description of contract law. Contracts are important and generally are upheld. However there are limits to how much of the governments time, resources, and monopoly on physical force the courts will marshal to enforce contracts.
eropple 7y ago
Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. ("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just, which is not the same thing as clueless.)
- meddlepal 7y ago
  > Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.
  - EdTsft 7y ago
    I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society? Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      I didn't state a preferred position, just that it's not that simple. For example, some forms of libertarian thought would definitely disagree that government has any role outside of contract enforcement.
  - eropple 7y ago
    It's "very left" to an Austrian. To pretty much everyone else it's uncontroversial.
rapind 7y ago
Insanity can be written into contracts. Like an employer who states you aren't allowed to write code for anyone else for at least 5 years after termination.
crazygringo 7y ago
You're factually wrong. Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds. You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan. Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses. Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.
- geebee 7y ago
  I’m not sure you’re right about libertarians. I haven’t sensed widespread libertarian support for long term debt collection by the government to recover money for foolish lenders.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    Do you have a link to anything like that? Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.
    - geebee 7y ago
      I see a reluctance to involve the government in long term wage garnishing or collection I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t. I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy

chrstphrhrt 7y ago

But you can't contract to do something illegal, and contracts must have consideration ("this for that"). Not sure what their test for excessiveness was. Reminds me of predatory lending rules like charging more than X% interest is excessive.

Heliosmaster 7y ago

Not really. I can't contract you to do something illegal for me (e.g. kill somebody, even me!). Now, if you are saying that these kind of contracts SHOULD be valid, that's another thing but that's not the case at the moment (and rightly so, imo)

kazinator 7y ago
The validity of hit contracts should probably be upheld in the following way: the contractee must pay the amount (in addition to whatever penalties they face), but that money is seized. It could be put into a fund that helps victims' families.

Tsarbomb 7y ago

This is such a fantastically American point of view.

geebee 7y ago
I believe it is not the point of view of US based contract law.
gbacon 7y ago
It derives from another: MYOB.

geebee 7y ago

I took a semester of contract law, though I am not a lawyer either. I believe what you write is not accurate. I vaguely remember a case about someone who sold a refrigerator for four times it’s retail value to a low income couple, collected three times the value, and then sued for the remainder. The court would not enforce further payment. However I believe it would not reverse what was already paid either. I probably have a lot about this wrong but I recall the professor saying “if that’s he bargain, that’s the bargain!” Is not a good description of contract law. Contracts are important and generally are upheld. However there are limits to how much of the governments time, resources, and monopoly on physical force the courts will marshal to enforce contracts.

eropple 7y ago

Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. ("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just, which is not the same thing as clueless.)

meddlepal 7y ago
> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.
- EdTsft 7y ago
  I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society? Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    I didn't state a preferred position, just that it's not that simple. For example, some forms of libertarian thought would definitely disagree that government has any role outside of contract enforcement.
- eropple 7y ago
  It's "very left" to an Austrian. To pretty much everyone else it's uncontroversial.

rapind 7y ago

Insanity can be written into contracts. Like an employer who states you aren't allowed to write code for anyone else for at least 5 years after termination.

crazygringo 7y ago

You're factually wrong. Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds. You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan. Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses. Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.

geebee 7y ago
I’m not sure you’re right about libertarians. I haven’t sensed widespread libertarian support for long term debt collection by the government to recover money for foolish lenders.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  Do you have a link to anything like that? Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.
  - geebee 7y ago
    I see a reluctance to involve the government in long term wage garnishing or collection I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t. I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy