3 ms·

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept. A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not

by Kranar 4y ago

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept. A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of whether that contract is binding.

lisper 4y ago
"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank. Such a contract is not binding/enforceable/legal but there would be no legal repercussions under contract law if you signed such a contract. If you robbed the bank you'd be charged with bank robbery, and if you didn't rob the bank you could be charged with conspiracy. But under no circumstances could you be charged with a contract violation (which is always a civil matter anyway, not a criminal one). > A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. That is just flat-out false. Verbal contracts can be (legally) binding and hence enforceable. It's not common because of the practical difficulties of ascertaining what the terms of a verbal contract actually are or were, but it's not unheard of.
- Kranar 4y ago
  I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Not to mention that you've now gone from trying to be pedantic about the fact that there's no such thing as a legal contract, to now saying that it's actually just a synonym for binding contract. If all you cared about was the overall intention and meaning instead of trying to get into the nitty gritty, there'd have never been a point in you posting to begin with. With that said, if you're under that impression then I'm afraid there's likely not much of a point in discussing this further with you and you're welcome to continue believing what you like.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Could be. Like I said at the beginning, IANAL. But if you are any less out of your league than I am, it would be pretty easy for you to cite the specific provision of contract law that would make it illegal, and how it would be prosecuted. Would it be a criminal offense? Felony or misdemeanor? Or would it be a civil suit? Who would be the plaintiff? Under what provision of contract law would they sue? What would be the actual damages? At worst, signing a contract to rob a bank might be evidence of a conspiracy [1] but conspiracy is not part of contract law. Merely signing such a contract in and of itself is not an illegal act. I could sign such a contract, for example, as part of an April Fools joke and that would be perfectly legal even if the contract that I signed were drawn up by a lawyer and was prima facie valid and enforceable. --- [1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/conspiracy/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con...
    - Kranar 4y ago
      This is really just bad man. It's why people shouldn't get legal advice from places like HN. First, the vast majority of contract law is common law, not statutes. Second, you seem to think something being illegal means it's criminal or civil. No the contract itself is an illegal contract by its very nature. In fact any contract whose purpose is to acheive an illegal end is an illegal contract. This is not in any statute but rather a common law principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement Please, I get people don't like my tone, I'm rude, people want to downvote rude people and that's fine... but for anyone reading this please do not get your legal advice from HN. It's really just a very misinformed and poor place to try to understand the law. In this very thread we have someone saying you can unilaterally modify a contract just by striking sections out with a pen. That just doesn't fly even if you do manage to trick the other party into signing it. And now we have someone who tried to be all clever and pedantic about the difference between a legal contract and a binding contract (before completely walking back on that distinction) and thinks there's nothing illegal in contract law about a contract that requires someone to rob a bank. Be very skeptical about what you read on this site on matters other than programming and technology. That's all I ask. Too many people pretend to be experts on matters of consequence, and it creates a great deal of noise. Downvote away.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- blippage 4y ago
  IANAL, and apropos of nothing in particular, there is a fun English case Everet v Williams [1725] (also known as the "Highwayman's Case"). They were highwaymen who agreed to share the loot. A dispute arose between them, and Everet decided to petition the court. This turned out to be a Bad Idea. According to https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92239/strange-case-everet-vs-williams-when-two-highwaymen-took-each-other-court https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92239/strange-case-evere... : > [Consequently] An order was issued for the arrest of Wreathock and White, Everet’s solicitors, on a charge of contempt of court for even bringing the case to the court’s attention at all. And for his part in the fiasco, barrister Jonathan Collins was ordered to pay all the costs himself—earning him a unique place in British legal history as the only barrister ordered to pay the costs of a failed case. Both Everet and Williams were eventually tried and hanged. > [The case] is frequently cited as an example of the legal principle ex dolo malo non oritur action—“no right of action can have its origin in fraud.” Or, in other words: You can’t expect the law to help when what you’re doing is illegal in the first place. Wreathock, the solicitor, was convicted of robbery in 1735. He was sentenced to hang, but it was commuted to transportation to Australia. An aside joke ... An Englishman goes to apply for a job at an Australian company. Australian: Do you have a criminal record? Englishman: I didn't know you still needed one.

by Kranar 4y ago

lisper 4y ago

"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank. Such a contract is not binding/enforceable/legal but there would be no legal repercussions under contract law if you signed such a contract. If you robbed the bank you'd be charged with bank robbery, and if you didn't rob the bank you could be charged with conspiracy. But under no circumstances could you be charged with a contract violation (which is always a civil matter anyway, not a criminal one). > A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. That is just flat-out false. Verbal contracts can be (legally) binding and hence enforceable. It's not common because of the practical difficulties of ascertaining what the terms of a verbal contract actually are or were, but it's not unheard of.

Kranar 4y ago
I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Not to mention that you've now gone from trying to be pedantic about the fact that there's no such thing as a legal contract, to now saying that it's actually just a synonym for binding contract. If all you cared about was the overall intention and meaning instead of trying to get into the nitty gritty, there'd have never been a point in you posting to begin with. With that said, if you're under that impression then I'm afraid there's likely not much of a point in discussing this further with you and you're welcome to continue believing what you like.
- lisper 4y ago
  > I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Could be. Like I said at the beginning, IANAL. But if you are any less out of your league than I am, it would be pretty easy for you to cite the specific provision of contract law that would make it illegal, and how it would be prosecuted. Would it be a criminal offense? Felony or misdemeanor? Or would it be a civil suit? Who would be the plaintiff? Under what provision of contract law would they sue? What would be the actual damages? At worst, signing a contract to rob a bank might be evidence of a conspiracy [1] but conspiracy is not part of contract law. Merely signing such a contract in and of itself is not an illegal act. I could sign such a contract, for example, as part of an April Fools joke and that would be perfectly legal even if the contract that I signed were drawn up by a lawyer and was prima facie valid and enforceable. --- [1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/conspiracy/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con...
  - Kranar 4y ago
    This is really just bad man. It's why people shouldn't get legal advice from places like HN. First, the vast majority of contract law is common law, not statutes. Second, you seem to think something being illegal means it's criminal or civil. No the contract itself is an illegal contract by its very nature. In fact any contract whose purpose is to acheive an illegal end is an illegal contract. This is not in any statute but rather a common law principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement Please, I get people don't like my tone, I'm rude, people want to downvote rude people and that's fine... but for anyone reading this please do not get your legal advice from HN. It's really just a very misinformed and poor place to try to understand the law. In this very thread we have someone saying you can unilaterally modify a contract just by striking sections out with a pen. That just doesn't fly even if you do manage to trick the other party into signing it. And now we have someone who tried to be all clever and pedantic about the difference between a legal contract and a binding contract (before completely walking back on that distinction) and thinks there's nothing illegal in contract law about a contract that requires someone to rob a bank. Be very skeptical about what you read on this site on matters other than programming and technology. That's all I ask. Too many people pretend to be experts on matters of consequence, and it creates a great deal of noise. Downvote away.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
blippage 4y ago
IANAL, and apropos of nothing in particular, there is a fun English case Everet v Williams [1725] (also known as the "Highwayman's Case"). They were highwaymen who agreed to share the loot. A dispute arose between them, and Everet decided to petition the court. This turned out to be a Bad Idea. According to https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92239/strange-case-everet-vs-williams-when-two-highwaymen-took-each-other-court https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92239/strange-case-evere... : > [Consequently] An order was issued for the arrest of Wreathock and White, Everet’s solicitors, on a charge of contempt of court for even bringing the case to the court’s attention at all. And for his part in the fiasco, barrister Jonathan Collins was ordered to pay all the costs himself—earning him a unique place in British legal history as the only barrister ordered to pay the costs of a failed case. Both Everet and Williams were eventually tried and hanged. > [The case] is frequently cited as an example of the legal principle ex dolo malo non oritur action—“no right of action can have its origin in fraud.” Or, in other words: You can’t expect the law to help when what you’re doing is illegal in the first place. Wreathock, the solicitor, was convicted of robbery in 1735. He was sentenced to hang, but it was commuted to transportation to Australia. An aside joke ... An Englishman goes to apply for a job at an Australian company. Australian: Do you have a criminal record? Englishman: I didn't know you still needed one.