Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Legal and Moral? | Mr. Big
Photo by frank mckenna on Unsplash
August 25, 2020
Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)
Unit 1 | Four Principles | Legal and Moral? | Mr. Big
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law:
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Legal and Moral? – Mr. Big hyperlink: Mr. Big Rewritten Lecture Notes
Here are Four (4) out of the Four (4) Principle types
in which, the government will not stand behind.
1.
Invitation to Dinner – [not] intent to create a legal relation?
2.
Silver Watch Case – Both Sides Must be Serious?
a)
Leonard verses PepsiCo Inc.
3.
Mr. Big – [not] Legal and [not]
Moral?
4. Mr. Big – Gift or [not] Bargain?
Now, Professor Fried will take us to a whole new level of a much serious to some degree in which, our next case, we will analyze is the married man (the husband) and his mistress. And, if the married man (the husband) and his mistress creates a formal legal relations intent from their legal and moral contract with a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments and, whether their extramarital affairs demands’ maintenance items are real gifts or bargains? If you recall studying, your high school constitution subject books and materials than you have already knew, our United States of America and other countries’ laws and statutes derives from those laws in England. And, the United States and other countries will not stand behind an informal legal relations intent. In this online lecture, Professor Fried will conveniently give us the third (3rd) and fourth (4th) types of principles out of the four (4) principles completed types.
Professor
Fried will give us an actual event surrounding the married man (Defendant)
and his mistress (the Plaintiff) and, the married man (Defendant) extramarital
affairs with his mistress (the Plaintiff) is based on a real event. There is a married man (the Defendant). And,
he (the Defendant) is a well-to-do executive and, he (the Defendant) has a
wonderful wife and children, and he (the Defendant) is a family man; however,
he also has a mistress (the Plaintiff) known as, cohabitation communal spouse.
It happens!
[1]
Recently, the married man’s (Defendant’s) mistress (the Plaintiff) is somewhat feeling neglected by the married man (Defendant). And, the mistress (Plaintiff) had threatened the married man (Defendant) in regard to their extramarital affairs coordinated bargaining activities that led to one (1) another extramarital affair offers exchanges. In which, the mistress (Plaintiff) had felt the married man (Defendant) does not pay her (the Plaintiff) enough attention and, the mistress (Plaintiff) had threatened to leave him. After, she (the Plaintiff) had stated, “if you (the married man (Defendant)) do not give in to my (mistress (the Plaintiff)) demands than I (mistress (the Plaintiff)) will no longer be available anymore for your (the married man (Defendant)) extracurricular activities with you (the married man (Defendant)) anymore.” So, the mistress (Plaintiff) demanded from the married man (Defendant) to buy her (the Plaintiff) a house and, the married man (Defendant) will be responsible for her (the Plaintiff’s) mortgage payments on the purchased house in his (the Defendant’s) mistress (Plaintiff) full legal name and, the mistress (Plaintiff) also demanded that the married man (Defendant) occasionally take her (the Plaintiff) on an expensive travel vacations and, buy her (the Plaintiff) an expensive jewelries and other similar expensive maintenance items from the mistress (Plaintiff) demands.
So, all expensive
maintenance items in which, the mistress (Plaintiff) had demanded
from the married man (Defendant) were written down by the mistress (Plaintiff) coordinated bargaining demands
onto a piece of paper through his (the Defendant) cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments,
as an extramarital affair offers to his mistress (the Plaintiff). And, through the mistress (Plaintiff) coordinated bargaining
demands written down onto a piece of paper ready for the married man
(Defendant) signature to signed in which, she (the Plaintiff) had bargained with the married man (Defendant) in
return cooperation.
And, the mistress (Plaintiff) had stipulated in her coordinated bargaining
demands stated, “if you (the married man (Defendant)) sign this piece of paper
document and, if you (the married man (Defendant)) agree to my (the mistress
(Plaintiff)) demands and, you (the married man (Defendant)) will do all which I
(the mistress (Plaintiff)) have demanded from you (the married man (Defendant))
than I (the mistress (Plaintiff)) will promise never
to call you (the married man (Defendant)) at home and work again.”
[1]
So, the married man (Defendant) had replied to his
mistress (the Plaintiff) “ I (the married man (Defendant)) do not care whether
you (the mistress (Plaintiff)) call me (the married man (Defendant)) at home and
work, or not, but you (the mistress (Plaintiff)) wanted me (the married man
(Defendant)) to add an additional demand onto this piece of paper documentation
and, this piece of paper documentation does not matter anyway to me (the
married man (Defendant)).” And, the married man (Defendant) had signed his
signature onto his mistress (the Plaintiff) piece of paper document. And, the
married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) both had signed their
signatures onto the piece of paper documentation, as to what appears to be an
official contract.
[1]
Now,
the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) contract was not a joke and, both parties were
serious about their cooperation in trusts,
promises, and commitments extramarital affair offers to one (1) another and, their contract was
not an informal friendly interchange
occasion or formal legal relations intent.
And, their extramarital affair offers were
real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments
by way of the married
man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) coordinated bargaining demands
exchanges.
The married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the
Plaintiff) case is not similar to Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors
verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi point offer or Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman’s
(the Plaintiff’s) old silver watch or Professor Fried (the Defendant) verses
Portia’s (the Plaintiff’s) invitation to dinner cases which had real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments were
accumulative amount from an intrinsic value in type of monetary
currencies involved in an
offers exchanges. So,
the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) case had
involved real intrinsic value in type of maintenance items such as,
the married man (Defendant) had paid for the mortgage payments, vacations,
jewelries and other expensive maintenance items in a coordinated bargaining demands
exchanges that led to his (the Defendant) offers
to his mistress. And, you know what?
The Judiciary court system and, the Honorable Judge
had thrown the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) case
out of his court for two (2) reasons. In the first (1st) reason why
the Judiciary court system and, Honorable Judge does not want to get involved
in enforcing and compelling illegal and immoral
contract
between the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the
Plaintiff) coordinated bargaining demands
exchanges written down onto a piece of paper and signed by both parties which
led to their extramarital affair offers. And, in the eyes of the Judiciary court system
and, Honorable Judge legal application test analogies had shown the married man
(Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) case had created an informal legal relations intent from their real
cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments with
one (1) another through an extramarital affair offers
that was a considered an illegal and immoral contract. Also, the Honorable Judge had stated to the married man (Defendant) and his mistress
(the Plaintiff) is as follows:
your coordinated bargaining demands
exchanges written down onto a piece of paper in which, you both had signed your
signatures too that led to your extramarital affair offers with one (1) another are considered tacky,
trashy and shoddy and, both of you have created an informal legal
relations intent that is not accept in any Judiciary court
system.”
[1]
So, the third (3rd) type of principle had created an informal legal relations intent between the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) in which, the government will not stand behind any illegal and immoral contract because of their cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments extramarital affair offers with one (1) another is considered an illegal and immoral acts.
And, in our second (2nd) reason, why the Judiciary court system and, Honorable Judge will not stand behind the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) extramarital affair offers which were considered a gifts and not a bargain exchanges that led to their illegal and immoral contract offers. And, in the eyes of the Judiciary court system and, Honorable Judge had decided the married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) extramarital affair offers were no more than a gift to his mistress (the Plaintiff) and not an official bargain exchanges.
We can only guess, the married man (Defendant) could not afford to purchase the house in an intrinsic value in type of monetary currencies in full payment. So, he (the Defendant) had promised to pay for his mistress (the Plaintiff) monthly mortgage payments, as a gift to her (the Plaintiff). This is considered a gift and, not a bargain exchange.
Well, how about the mistress (Plaintiff) real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments not to call him (the Defendant)? And, the Judiciary court system and, the Honorable Judge said, the mistress (Plaintiff) promise not to call the married man (Defendant) does not considered a real bargain contract offer exchange. Why not? Since, the married man (Defendant) told his mistress (the Plaintiff) during the trial that he (the Defendant) did not care about this piece of paper with his (the Defendant) signature onto the document which the mistress (Plaintiff) had wrote those coordinated bargaining demands exchanges that she (the Plaintiff) had wanted, as her cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments extramarital affair offers from him (the Defendant). And, the married man (Defendant) had stated in the courtroom, “It is, as if, you (the mistress (Plaintiff)) is saying I (the married man (Defendant)) is going to give you (the mistress (Plaintiff)) yesterday’s newspaper in an exchange for all your (the mistress (Plaintiff)) demands today which are documented onto this piece of paper is nothing to me (the married man (Defendant)) and, you (the mistress (Plaintiff)) knew, I (the married man (Defendant)) did not want.”
In our fourth (4th) principle type is whether the
married man (Defendant) and his mistress (the Plaintiff) extramarital affairs were
a real cooperation in trusts,
promises, and commitments contract offers in a coordinated bargaining demands
exchanges were a gifts or bargains? And, why did the Judiciary court system
and, the Honorable Judge in accordance to our government statutes or laws will
ignore many real cooperation in trusts,
promises, and commitment which leads to a parties contract offers with
one (1) another? Since, our Judiciary
court system and, the Honorable Judge govern and upholds our Laws and Statutes
will most likely ignore many real cooperation
in trusts,
promises, and commitments which led to a parties contract offers with
one (1) another when those cooperation
in trusts,
promises, and commitments are not real bargain exchanges.
Comments