3 ms·
I believe the poster was implying that contracts should not be superior to law, should not be able to remove a person's legal protections. Enforcing contracts n
by car_analogy 5y ago
I believe the poster was implying that contracts should not be superior to law, should not be able to remove a person's legal protections. Enforcing contracts no matter what (or in other words, placing no limits on which contracts it will enforce) should not be a legal system's goal.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThey are never superior to law. If there is a law that says "Thou shalt not eat oranges." then no contract can stipulate eating oranges by either party, and there is no legal redress to it other than changing the law, contract law never supersedes "the law of the land"
- car_analogy 5y agoThat's a very reductive view. Yes, strictly speaking, the law is always superior. But if that law allows things such as signing away your rights, then that superiority is meaningless.