Dear Murray,
I am advised that you may be in need of an attorney's professional services. May I be so bold as to recommend myself? While your past legal problems may be unsolvable at present, I am of the opinion that I can offer you legal confidence in your future endeavors, and as a result, peace of mind.
As proof, let me suggest what could have been a possible remedy for a situation you recently encountered, in hopes that my analysis of that prior problem will assure you of my future expertise. As you are aware, on or about August 12, 2006, you placed a bet with one Jamey P., wherein you agreed to pay him $100 if he could swim across the intracostal canal and back. He did. In his suit pants, I might add. This put you in the hole 100 bucks.(1) In hind sight, you recognized this to be a bad decision.(2)
For $25 I could have saved you $100.(3) Had I been your corporate counsel, I would have given you the following advice: Rather than placing a bet with Jamey, you should have entered into an oral contract. Oral contracts can be binding, and most folks (Jamey included) are more comfortable with the legality of "contracts" as opposed to friendly wagers. However, the terms of your agreement with Jamey would have classifed your agreement as a unilateral contract (rather than a bilateral contract). This is good for you. In a bilateral contract, parties exchange promises of performance to take place in the future. Such contracts are generally enforceable when consideration is present.
Unilateral contracts, on the other hand, exist when the offeror (in this case you) offers to exchange his promise of a future performance only in return for the offeree's (Jamey) actual rendering of performance, e.g. "I will give you $100 if you swim across the canal and back." You do not want Jamey's PROMISE to swim the canal, you want the ACT of swimming the canal.
What's this got to do with the price of tea in China? In contract law, a contract is not enforceable until there has been an offer, acceptance, and some sort of consideration between the parties, which, in unilateral contracts, such consideration and acceptance is bound up together in the rendering of the desired performance. And, because the "offeror is the master of the offer," until an offer is accepted the offeror retains the right to revoke the contract at any time. Thus, as classical theory of contracts would suggest, until Jamey has swam the entire canal, you are not bound to pay Jamey, because no contract actually arises until the completion of the act called for.
With the bet, once Jamey jumped in the water, most people (Jamey especially) expected you to pay. With a unilateral contract, once Jamey had swum across the canal and was headed back, you still retained the right to withdraw your offer, at which point "all bets are off." Despite Jamey's objections that this is a bit hard on him, classic contract theory suggests that "hard" cases should not make bad law.(4) Jamey was not bound to swim the canal, and if he is will-free, shouldn't you be will-free as well? So despite your propensity for brash betting and impulsive gambling, a unilateral contract would have given you time to pause, consider the consequences, and recant, regardless of where Jamey and his suit pants were currently swimming.
As for your terrible golf game, you may wish to seek professional counsel elsewhere.
I hope to be of service, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
The Sleuth
(1) Murray subsequently attempted to win this money back with a series of smaller bets, the majority of which centered around golf, compounded by "double or nothing" bets. He lost all of them.
(2) As taken from Murray's Myspace "Blurb": "I recently lost one of my wallets. Word of advice: don't play golf when you have work to do. 2nd word of advice: don't bet money when you can just dare. 3rd word of advice: don't bet money on your golf game. 4th word of advice: don't do any of that when you are missing your wallet."
(3) $25 initial consultation fee based on average costs for similar legal counsel. Prices may vary, see office for details.
(4) Jamey may also raise issues of limitations on untrammelled revocability, but he wouldn't know what the heck that is anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Murray, for $33 I will take the case. The extra money is worth it. We will not take some hind-sight approach as Mr. Luther has suggested. The approach that Sleuth has taken is logical, indeed, and based on the law. The problem is that if your buddy should sue for performance of your contract, you may get a judge like Oliver Wendell Holmes who does not believe in logic. However, there is another direction that we can go--equity. A trial of equity is not bound by law. Instead, the decision falls on the judge's perception of fairness (rather than the law's objective of justice). See Woolums v. Horseley where the judge decided that the contract was “not equitable or reasonable, or grounded upon sufficient consideration.”
Basically, all we need to do is talk about how Jamey had unfair knowledge of his own physical prowess that you, an uneducated, poor, balding, and unsuspecting victim were unaware of. This is the classic white-handkerchief approach where we make the judge feel sorry for you. He will surely refund your $100 and eliminate the debt that you have incurred while trying to recover it. Not only that, I’m sure we can get a little pain and suffering. And for only $33, it can be yours.
Jamey, if you’re willing to put up $40 I’ve got an even better deal for you.
This message brought to you by John “the Heavy Hitter” Tyler. At Tyler Cheates & Skrewsum, we’re the big guys here for the little man and we never let justice get in the way of what’s right—you getting money.
Jason I would love it if you could take the post up there and change it into words that could be understanded by a country Bo like me. But it is ok if you can't. I understand that writing that much could make you wooped dead tired.
Sincerly,
JMH
LOL Jason. This almost makes me miss being a 1L :- ) The cases are unbeatable. Sounds like you are thriving. ~ Abigail
Post a Comment