Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Silver Watch Case | Discussion Board
August 10, 2020
Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)
Unit 1 | Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Silver Watch Case | Discussion Board
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law:
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Both Sides Serious? – Silver Watch Case – Discussion Board hyperlink: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ar6iJPTO61dwxDmgXMg-EAUqGzPp
A Frolic and A Banter?
The law would not enforce contracts that merely “a frolic and a banter” – that neither side takes seriously.
Why do you think that is?
The Honorable Judge will not stand behind any parties intent to create a legal relation from a coordinated old silver watch bargaining activity through cooperation which leads to their trusts, promises, and commitments between Keller (“the Defendant”) verses Holderman (“the Plaintiff”) was decided as, “a frolic and a banter” because most likely both parties were considered not contractually competent parties. After, the Honorable Judge had discovered Keller (the Defendant) and Holderman (the Plaintiff) were encumbered by alcohol beverages at the time both parties coordinated their transactional verbalized contractual agreement with one (1) another. In which, by law all parties must be of a sound mind, legal age, unencumbered by drugs, alcohol or mental illnesses (who are not declared insane).
Furthermore, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case does not create a legal relation in any judiciary court system when Holderman (the Plaintiff) had no legal merits in his civil cause of action that arises from a breach of contract against Keller (the Defendant) due from their communication informal or verbal fallacies promises. And, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) verbalized and coordinated old silver watch transactional exchange bargain was an informal communication to one (1) another were flawed in their linguistic contents, also known as, communication informal fallacies with each other promises, or Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) verbalized and coordinated old silver watch transactional exchange bargain was taken out of contexts due from their playful tones or joking languages of utterances were not clear to one (1) another, and this is defined as, a verbal promise fallacies. Therefore, the old silver watch case between Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) had no intent to create a legal relation because both parties was not taken seriously, or not contractually competent to create a verbalized official contract with one (1) another in which, both parties did not jeopardized their promises to one (1) another, if there were no promises made in the first (1st) place when both parties were encumbered by alcohol beverages.
Otherwise, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) are both parties who had attempted to engage in the judiciary civil court system “Bad Man Theory” of an old silver watch case paradoxical anomaly law application when both parties were not taken seriously enough was adopted by Oliver Wendell Holmes “who mentioned that a society’s legal system is defined by predicting how the law would affect a person, as opposed to considering the ethics or morals underlying of the law interpretations.”[1] And, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case had successfully accomplished, this through their communication informal or verbal fallacies promises with one (1) another when the Honorable Judge had decided, “the whole transaction between the parties was a frolic and a banter.” LOL.
[1]
“Bad-Man Theory Law and Legal Definition.” Airslate Legal Forms, Inc. d/b/a US
Legal,
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bad-man-theory/.
Comments