Marc in tights?
I laugh and say “yes, that sounds adorable.”
Then, I see Jennifer with a grin that seems just a tad over-sized.
“God damn it! You are gonna make me wear green tights, aren’t you? No deal,” I said.
Two lawyers in the car say “nope, you made a contract. We are witnesses to it. You can’t back out.”
I’m not seeing how there could have been detrimental reliance on my gratuitous promise to perform — especially since the span between the acceptance and the repudiation was only about 30 seconds.
I need a good lawyer.
By Email
By RSS Feed
October 7, 2009 at 11:53 am |
Agreement, yes. Contract, no. No consideration, for one thing–and although that’s not such a big deal anymore, what IS a big deal is the fact that neither party receives any quid pro quo from the other. This was nothing more than a naked agreement to do something together, not an enforceable contract.
October 7, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
The kids agreed not to cry in the back seat of your car — that’s detrimental reliance if I’ve ever seen it.
The rest of your “case” reminds me a lot of the recent California Appellate Court decision in DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc. The defendant entered a licensing agreement in which it agreed to be bound by future terms that were not disclosed at the time of signing, due to confidentiality reasons. When things went sour, the defendants argued they could not be bound by the non-disclosed terms because they were not incorporated into the agreement.
The majority basically said “let’s not deal with this now,” wrote some gobbledygook, and found the defendant in breach. There was a rather strong dissenting opinion that argued that the court should hit the issue head-on.
The dissent proposed that these types of agreements should only be enforced if there is a justification for the non-disclosure of terms that is “reasonably apparent to the licensor”; and that a covenant must “fall within the zone of reasonable expectation.”
In regards to reasonable expectations, you should have seen the tights requirement a mile away. Justification for the non-disclosure is a bit tougher, but do kids ever really need a justification for non-disclosure?
Either way, your wife still gets to null the tights requirement on public policy grounds (for the good of the world).
October 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
It may not be LEGALLY enforceable, but that doesn’t mean that your wife won’t kick your ass if you fail to perform to your fatherly duties:)
October 7, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
How come I can’t just be Captain Hook???
October 8, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
because it matters not a whit if you dress to the left or right. such arguments are outside the scope and we really don’t want to have to wade through piles of evidence on this one or have to contemplate appointing a special master.
October 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
This is basic contract law. A mutual promise of performance is deemed adequate consideration to bind a party to a contract.
October 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
What you failed to understand is that you lose no matter what. Regardless of whether a contract was created, you were out-voted 2-1. We will all demand pictures of you in tights.!
October 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
The law of contracts is dead. I’m sure you can be more creative, but at a minimum, you can use your state’s general harassment statutes to render void any contractual obligation to wear green tights. ;)
October 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
Do you think I could sustain a viable harassment suit against my wife though?
October 10, 2009 at 10:03 pm |
Depends. Green tights is prima facia, but I’d want to know whether she has a cast iron skillet in her kitchen? . . . the better part of valor, you know.
October 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
When you stop acting like Peter pan then you won’t have to dress like him! I think the punishment in this case totally fits the crime.
October 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
Lowly 1L here with a contracts midterm tomorrow, but even granting that it’s a K within a familial relationship (as Bob alluded to), the tights are an additional term outside of the original K and would require mutual assent.