|
Kawasaki Nun posted:My understanding is that the lawsuit should be directed at the State requiring the usage of programs that demand issues be resolved through religious arbitration. Solution: Ban conversion therapy. The APA already recognizes that Conversion Therapy is tantamount to torture and has recommended it be treated as such. Multiple states are already pushing laws banning it. Sue the gently caress out of Teen Challenge as well.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
How is this not a blatant violation of separation of church and state?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Solution: Ban conversion therapy. The APA already recognizes that Conversion Therapy is tantamount to torture and has recommended it be treated as such. Multiple states are already pushing laws banning it. I'm not sure how that's applicable since it doesn't seem like he was forced into any kind of conversion therapy program. It just sounds to me like he was forced into a fundamentalist AA program where he was told that in addition to being a Bad Person for drinking he also had the vice of homosexuality and was bad for that too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:How is this not a blatant violation of separation of church and state? He had the 'choice' of going to jail instead. Also presumably he could have gone to a secular program if those were things that existed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:These sort of arbitration agreements are an area of the law I know only a very little about but my first intuition is that the agreement in the OP is not remotely enforceable in this situation. Same. My guess is they could and should sue but have no idea that they can do that because an important sounding piece of paper tells them they can't. If the description is accurate that's not even an arbitration clause in the first place, it's just some words strung together to look nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:He had the 'choice' of going to jail instead. I would hope that the courts are not quite this dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Adar posted:Same. My guess is they could and should sue but have no idea that they can do that because an important sounding piece of paper tells them they can't. If the description is accurate that's not even an arbitration clause in the first place, it's just some words strung together to look nice. In several cases the court upheld the arbitration clause, but it's nullified it in others, most recently against Uber: quote:But the court then found two components of the relevant contracts unenforceable. The first unenforceable clause was the so-called delegation clause which stipulated that questions concerning the enforceability of the arbitration clause would themselves be resolved by the arbitrator. Such delegation clauses are enforceable only when they are “clear and unmistakable,” and Judge Chen found that the Uber delegation clause did not meet this standard: although the delegation clause’s language was itself clear, that language conflicted with other portions of the contract that created ambiguity about which decision maker – the arbitrator or a court – would decide enforceability. This ambiguity defeated Uber’s claim that the delegation was clear and unmistakable. Judge Chen also held, in the alternative, that the delegation clause was unconscionable under California law: procedurally unconscionable because (at least with respect to one version of the contract) the opt-out clause was “buried in the contract” and substantively unconscionable because it required – in certain cases – employees to pay substantial forum fees. The only reason it worked in this case is that Uber's contract was so laughably one-sided and evil that the court found it, in legal terms, "totally bullshit" and declared it invalid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I don't see why they couldn't have allowed him to transfer to a secular drug program that isn't run by evangelicals. Even the "secular" programs aren't really irreligious. The 12 steps are woven into nearly every treatment program there is--even expensive, high end clinics whose clients believe they're paying for something a cut above. Even an authentically secular program, however, doesn't guarantee he wouldn't have been forced into some idiotic group therapy with homophobic strangers and bullies. The expectation in all cases is that your existing friends and support are replaced with a new group of potentially toxic, certainly unstable addicts, many of whom use the program as a personal dating service and have even shittier attitudes than judges and probation officers (assuming they're complying with the program and not just dealing to the people in their group to begin with) because they're essentially adult converts whose induction into the group wasn't all that different from hazing. Maybe there was a perfectly viable alternative, but courts are unbelievable petty when it comes to their captives and can set all sorts of arbitrary rules based off of what the high school educated social worker thinks and what the Judge remembered reading in a magazine once about addiction. Basically all these diversionary programs are meant to represent the "softer side" of justice but actually have the effect of creating potentially worse outcomes than the draconian sentences they are meant to insulate from criticism. Offenders typically receive a combination of probation and terrible and/or non-existent mandated care that guarantees they'll be cycled back into the system sooner or later, often at a greater expense and more time served than if they had just gone to jail to begin with. Arbitration is a separate issue but its no wonder that places that claim to treat addiction need a way to insulate themselves from lawsuits. The consequences for failing at that particular gig are totally catastrophic and the mental health community responsible for treatment is hilariously ideological to the point of blaming addicts in their own programs for not making the recovery they paid for. Edit: All of this is not to mention the fact that the courts are not qualified to diagnose mental health issues to begin with and have absolutely no business mandating any kind of treatment, often overruling private assessments in order to do so. Woozy fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
A normal arbitration clause is usually, though not always, enforceable. quote:Ellison had signed an arbitration contract that agreed all matters and disputes pertaining to Teen Challenge must be settled through a Christian arbitration process that would be bound not by state or federal law, but by the Bible where “The Holy Scripture shall be the supreme authority” This is not a normal arbitration clause and strongly sounds like Sovereign Citizenry: Bible Edition. e: upon further review these types of clauses have been ruled valid a number of times as well. Welp 
Adar fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Adar posted:A normal arbitration clause is usually, though not always, enforceable. Yeah to be a valid arbitrator the arbitrator generally has to be certified by certain bodies (FINRA I think?) but beyond that they can be any weirdo nutjob your particular lovely world view demands decide the fate of your clients. EDIT: The authority I've seen most often in contracts is the American Arbitration Association but I'm not sure if that's legally required or just a good way to make it look like you're being ~fair~.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Even the "secular" programs aren't really irreligious. The 12 steps are woven into nearly every treatment program there is--even expensive, high end clinics whose clients believe they're paying for something a cut above. Even an authentically secular program, however, doesn't guarantee he wouldn't have been forced into some idiotic group therapy with homophobic strangers and bullies. The expectation in all cases is that your existing friends and support are replaced with a new group of potentially toxic, certainly unstable addicts, many of whom use the program as a personal dating service and have even shittier attitudes than judges and probation officers (assuming they're complying with the program and not just dealing to the people in their group to begin with) because they're essentially adult converts whose induction into the group wasn't all that different from hazing. Still sounds better than going to jail, or would if it didn't involve forcing non-Christians into Christian programs, which shouldn't be loving offered unless there's an equal secular program available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Still sounds better than going to jail, or would if it didn't involve forcing non-Christians into Christian programs, which shouldn't be loving offered unless there's an equal secular program available. It sounds better because you're not one of the guys who finally just executed his sentence and did way more time than he would have after years of being harassed by probation, missing work, and shaken down to the tune of thousands of dollars in fees for random drug testing, monitoring, and whatever else. Most of the people who end up in the system more than once recognize that jail is a way better deal, particularly if they qualify for work release or house arrest. The trouble with probation for drug offenders is that is has absolutely zero tolerance for relapse, which is a nearly impossible standard for drug addicts who have never been treated before. Anyone who can make it through 2-5 years of supervised probation without getting violated and serving even more time than they would have was probably never in any serious need of treatment to begin with! The expectation of these sorts of programs is that literally everything in your life gets worse but you manage to stop using. The advantage of jail time is that it ends, making it at least in principle possible for the offender to turn things around before being shuffled back into the carceral system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It sounds better because you're not one of the guys who finally just executed his sentence and did way more time than he would have after years of being harassed by probation, missing work, and shaken down to the tune of thousands of dollars in fees for random drug testing, monitoring, and whatever else. Most of the people who end up in the system more than once recognize that jail is a way better deal, particularly if they qualify for work release or house arrest. The trouble with probation for drug offenders is that is has absolutely zero tolerance for relapse, which is a nearly impossible standard for drug addicts who have never been treated before. Anyone who can make it through 2-5 years of supervised probation without getting violated and serving even more time than they would have was probably never in any serious need of treatment to begin with! Seems like actually having gone to jail would disqualify you from way more jobs than probation since people seem to think jail can't reform people but probation somehow can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Seems like actually having gone to jail would disqualify you from way more jobs than probation since people seem to think jail can't reform people but probation somehow can. I mean, the job hunt is basically over once you have a conviction no matter what the sentence ended up as. Clearing your criminal record is next to impossible no matter how long or how good you've been when it comes to these sorts of crimes and it doesn't matter anyway because your employment record for the years you were on probation is a big red minimum wage flag, not to mention the fact that there are a thousand different databases through which to conduct a background check and none of the people who operate them care that your official record was expunged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
In addition to the other problems listed with the goon arbitration firm, corporations could just provide free arbitration, denying any argument about affordability. They could even make it a "good PR" move while they bend you over. This would happen as soon as the idea got any traction at all because they know drat well paying for the arbiter is cheaper than going to court. It's a shame because I like the spirit of the suggestion, but I think court challenges are the way to go since it's probably a legislative nonstarter what with every lobbyist ever and half the legislature probably benefiting from the status quo
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:How is this not a blatant violation of separation of church and state? The Deadstate article appears to be incorrect. The NYT article they are basing it on stated that it was Ellison's family and friends that recommended they send him to Teen Challenges instead of prison. The state only agreed to suspend the proceedings pending completion of the program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Trent posted:In addition to the other problems listed with the goon arbitration firm, corporations could just provide free arbitration, denying any argument about affordability. They could even make it a "good PR" move while they bend you over. This would happen as soon as the idea got any traction at all because they know drat well paying for the arbiter is cheaper than going to court. I'm not defending my whole idea, but an in-house arbitrator would not be "neutral" so the rulings would be unenforceable (or at least challengeable in court). There are rules to this, we all just clearly don't know them. Couldn't a lawyer (or some other professional) just have a side business of "arbitrator?" I get that there's nothing perfect about a random solution thrown out there yesterday (goon firm), but having read some of the arbitration agreements in articles and such, and going to the that website I posted that was all about arbitration, I think there are chinks in the armor in that in arbitration you both still have to be equal parties and there must be some form of leverage or control or input that makes you an "equal party in a contract" and not a private prisoner in a private justice system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I'm not defending my whole idea, but an in-house arbitrator would not be "neutral" so the rulings would be unenforceable (or at least challengeable in court). There are rules to this, we all just clearly don't know them. Right. Signing an arbitration clause doesn't mean that your family cannot pursue a lawsuit against an organization for say, wrongful death or damages that result as a consequence of negligence. Arbitration is a means of conflict resolution that can either be binding or non-binding but which is supposed to be entered into by two consenting parties. I'm not sure about what qualification, if any, there are to entering into an arbitration agreement, however. Obviously in most instances of arbitration between businesses there is a significant amount of financial duress influencing the decision of both parties. It does seem like it would be a violation of a law of some-sort for a state or county to only provide a single option for probation management if that organization required religious arbitration for disputes. While the organization is not technically a part of the government religious arbitration would be unsatisfactory to people of another religion, atheists etc. Outlawing arbitration would be hugely impractical and expensive, and those aren't even the best arguments against illegalization. This whole discussion seems like its just shadowboxing in the absence of an explanation of why his family, who were not signatories to the agreement, cannot bring a case against Teen challenge like the article suggests. Perhaps they were just told that and bought it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Right. Signing an arbitration clause doesn't mean that your family cannot pursue a lawsuit against an organization for say, wrongful death or damages that result as a consequence of negligence. Arbitration is a means of conflict resolution that can either be binding or non-binding but which is supposed to be entered into by two consenting parties. I'm not sure about what qualification, if any, there are to entering into an arbitration agreement, however. Obviously in most instances of arbitration between businesses there is a significant amount of financial duress influencing the decision of both parties. This describes my intuition on the subject pretty well, though again I don't claim to be knowledgeable on this area of the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Crigit posted:Why should an agreement the guy signed have anything to do with whether his family can sue though? I assume they didn't sign any arbitration agreement. I wonder the same thing. If I were the kid's father, I'd be all up for suing those bastards for everything they're worth. Of course if that didn't work out I might resort to good old fashioned all-American violence. Seriously, gently caress those bastards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:That was the thing I was wondering myself. Did the judge state outright 'This is a christian group and therefore is the right choice' or did he say 'this group has volunteered to take you' or some stupid poo poo like that? I was mainly wondering if this group has any prior history of homophobic behavior. That in itself would make for a strong case against both the state and the group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Beaters posted:I wonder the same thing. If I were the kid's father, I'd be all up for suing those bastards for everything they're worth. Of course if that didn't work out I might resort to good old fashioned all-American violence. Seriously, gently caress those bastards. They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to. Oh I didn't notice this was in Florida, yeah all bets are off here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:http://deadstate.org/man-commits-suicide-after-court-ordered-christian-drug-treatment-program-tried-to-un-gay-him/ quote:But beyond that, I often hear fear mongering from conservatives about Sharia law, isn't this basically the same thing? The Sharia law issue came up when Canada supposedly was allowing Muslim arbitration that used Sharia law in divorce cases and conservatives lost their loving minds. quote:I am very skeptical of binding arbitration clauses. They aren't fair. This man signed a contract because the alternative was jail and the person making the contract has all the power. Its not this image of two private citizens engaging in a mutually benficial agreement within a perfect liberal meritocracy, there are power disparities between people. There are material conditions that contracts occur within. And the arbitration are biased and also are incredibly expensive for the party that is suing. Add on to this what is likely to be a fundamentalist theology and you have a recipe for giving this program license to do whatever it wants. Of course there is a power disparity, it's between a judge and a convicted criminal of course there's a power disparity how can there be any justice if the judges hold no authority over citizens? Of course it's not some idealized perfect contract it's a criminal facing jail time for his crime and being graciously offered an opportunity to pardon his sentence by opting into a treatment program that involves a spiritual component. I mean, it's not like any of this was forced he was facing the due consequences of his crime and took an optional way out that involved a commitment to a program. This sounds very similar to the path of the Christian, accepting grace in the face of the consequences for one's sin. His death is a tragedy and a loss, and i understand people being resistant the state forcing anyone to participate in religious activities but faith based organizations do a lot of good work and service many people in need of various sorts of rehabilitation. Is it really some theocratic coup if a court partners with faith based rehabilitation programs to provide optional alternatives to jail time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
as a Marxist, isn't being employed a way of signing away your rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to. I wonder if his lawyer had any input in his signing that contract, if not i wonder how they successful defend those contracts because maybe admitting yourself into a drug treatment facility counts as evidence of not being in sound mind or something like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Something I have noticed, though, is that the majority of people never have to deal with the legal system and thus don't know how it works or that stuff like this happens. Still yet, even fewer people realize that camps that try to "pray the gay away" or use other such types of indoctrination actually exist. I was raised very very strict fundamental independent Baptist and as soon as I was old enough to make the choice I stopped going to church. When I tell people that kids get sent to camps to become un-gay, or even when I tell people what is considered "sin" they don't believe that those camps exist or that people control you that much. I went to a college for a year, to make my parents happy, that banned movies, music that wasn't approved (i.e. all music basically), headphones (so you could not listen to unapproved music), and used to make girls walk on different sidwalks then the guys to "avoid unchaperoned contact". But freedom of religion right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Something I have noticed, though, is that the majority of people never have to deal with the legal system and thus don't know how it works or that stuff like this happens. I think these folks would really, really like Iran if they just gave it a chance! Except only the government, not the people, because most of the citizens are way cooler about everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:This. The other problem I'm not seeing discussed in response to this idea is logistics. How are you reaching potential plaintiffs in need of arbitration? How do they know you exist? How do you tell them you are plaintiff friendly without explicitly stating you're biased in their favor? How do you hire arbitrators when the big firms can afford to pay better salaries with all that corporate revenue? Keep in mind, most people who are hurt don't fight back; of those who do most don't get an attorney. All the structural advantages here are on the side of the institution. Personally I am starting to suspect the answer is to presume arbitration clauses are invalid unless the party seeking to enforce can prove the parties negotiated at arms length and without adhesion. Per sonally, yeah, I suspe Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to. Wow this seems extremely bizarre. Could they not establish that his death was atleast potentially a consequence of gross negligence and therefore not subject to the arbitration agreement or something? I don't know how the law works exactly but this seems hugely bizarre
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Wow this seems extremely bizarre. Could they not establish that his death was atleast potentially a consequence of gross negligence and therefore not subject to the arbitration agreement or something? I don't know how the law works exactly but this seems hugely bizarre I mean if he actually committed intentional suicide with a note saying "I'd rather die than go back to that place" but a [Florida] judge looks at this case and sees "Bad Drug Addict young fag given the second chance of going to a good christian healing opportunity, turns away from it and OD's on drugs because he is a Bad Drug Addict"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Is it really some theocratic coup if a court partners with faith based rehabilitation programs to provide optional alternatives to jail time? If "jail time" is the only secular alternative, then yeah it kind of is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I wonder if his lawyer had any input in his signing that contract, if not i wonder how they successful defend those contracts because maybe admitting yourself into a drug treatment facility counts as evidence of not being in sound mind or something like that No it doesn't. If he wasn't considered of sound mind to choose it, he wouldn't have been offered a choice in the first place. And why would he have given his lawyer any input? He agreed to the program, the contract was just a paper he had to sign before he got in. Do you call your lawyer every time you sign up for a cellphone plan to have them interpret the terms and conditions for you? Kawasaki Nun posted:Wow this seems extremely bizarre. Could they not establish that his death was atleast potentially a consequence of gross negligence and therefore not subject to the arbitration agreement or something? I don't know how the law works exactly but this seems hugely bizarre I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works. The fact that he died is tragic but there's no magic legal principle when you die that annulls all unfavorable contract conditions you previously agreed to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:If "jail time" is the only secular alternative, then yeah it kind of is. the family negotiated a deal with the prosecutor's office to avoid jail time because of a probation violation they were the ones who told the office about teen challenges, based off a family friends recommendation NYT posted:Religion has long been at the center of Pamela Spivey’s life. She taught Sunday school, went to Bible-study camps and watched preachers on television. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I guess dying after being persecuted is Christ like
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works. The fact that he died is tragic but there's no magic legal principle when you die that annulls all unfavorable contract conditions you previously agreed to. There are certainly limits to how unbalanced a contract can be or how ridiculous the terms are before a judge can find parts of or the whole contract unenforceable. As an aside, this is what makes discussing issues of law completely obnoxious. Yes, on it's face death, in and of itself does not annul a contract. But couldn't you for a second consider that there might be other reasons why this contract may not be enforceable that are related to the fact that this individual is dead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:the family negotiated a deal with the prosecutor's office to avoid jail time because of a probation violation Ah yeah, they probably have no legal recourse then, and the original story is pretty misleading. quote:“When you think Christian, you automatically think good,” said Ms. Spivey, who goes by the name Cheri. As a side note, it's pretty interesting to me how this person's world view assumes everyone equates "christian" with "good" where mine pretty much equates it with "bad" because it's been an entirely negative influence on my life as a queer growing up in the south who's now in a long-term relationship with a trans partner who grew up in a highly conservative catholic family. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand though I just thought it was interesting personally  EDIT: To clarify I don't mean to inject that last part as a "lol christians r dum /r/atheism forever" kinda thing, I meant more that I presume she knew her son was gay and she lives in Florida same as me and it's not like christianity here isn't pretty constantly hostile to the gay agenda. EDIT2: wait it sounds like she's in Knoxville, which I have no personal experience with but I always assumed was more south-like than Florida. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There are certainly limits to how unbalanced a contract can be or how ridiculous the terms are before a judge can find parts of or the whole contract unenforceable. Like what? Arbitration clauses do not, by themselves, render contracts unenforceable. Certain particularly unbalanced arbitration clauses may do so, but there's nothing to suggest that this is one of them. Likewise, being offered a contract by a court as an alternative to jail time does not render the contract unenforceable. Negligence does not automatically render contracts unenforceable, and neither does death. If you think there was something in there that made the contract unenforceable, then say it, instead of criticizing my response to someone else for not addressing questions they never raised. The person I responded to only asked about death and negligence, which is why I only responded to those. Also, please be sure to distinguish between how things do work currently (i.e., "reality") and how you think they should work (i.e., "wishful thinking"). What I hate about discussing issues of law is people who fail to distinguish between using "it shouldn't work like this" to mean that it contradicts current law and using "it shouldn't work like this" to mean that any law that could possibly allow it is unjust and should be changed to fit their utopian vision, so you end up with legal scholars debating how laws actually work with people who are only really interested in describing their own ideal law code and then criticizing the real world for not living up to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Like what? Arbitration clauses do not, by themselves, render contracts unenforceable. Certain particularly unbalanced arbitration clauses may do so, but there's nothing to suggest that this is one of them. Likewise, being offered a contract by a court as an alternative to jail time does not render the contract unenforceable. Negligence does not automatically render contracts unenforceable, and neither does death. You keep talking about "death doesn't automatically render a contract unenforceable" (the rest I never brought up) but the person you were responding to wasn't presuming that death renders contracts unenforceable nor were they talking about death but rather the conditions surrounding death - specifically asking if there was gross negligence. We see this all the time with all sorts of activities that require the signing of waivers which then become absolutely useless when it comes out that someone hosed up in a terrible way and it lead to a major injury or death. quote:If you think there was something in there that made the contract unenforceable, then say it, instead of criticizing my response to someone else for not addressing questions they never raised. The person I responded to only asked about death and negligence, which is why I only responded to those. I'm more than happy to clarify anything I'm being unclear. I'm not a lawyer, but I do get tired of the lawyer types who stop all forms of discussion on a particular issue because the wrong magic word was used rather than be willing to point out, "X doesn't work, but here are these related concepts that make more sense". Instead, you just ended it at "death doesn't automatically nullify contracts".
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/10-11-2013/12-4377.pdf the appellate court's opinion
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:48
|
|