Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Contracts, the workings of law, and selling your soul.

Page 1 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Apr 2010, 9:36 pm

Recently there was a case where 7500 shoppers accidentally sold their souls to a game company.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... latestnews

Now, it is the case that this company was doing this as a joke, however, the problem is that given the number of contracts in existence, looking over each contract is a rather difficult thing, however, at the same time, these contracts are binding. If a person can accidentally sell their soul in a contract, then how should we regard contracts? What should we think about systems that express many major social realities in terms of contracts, such as social contract theories and others? Does it make sense to use contracts as a model of social relations given the real issues in human beings signing contracts? If contracts are not a good model for social relations, then how should we think about issues of assent to government and other kinds of issues? How should contract law work if contracts themselves cannot be taken so seriously?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Apr 2010, 9:58 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Recently there was a case where 7500 shoppers accidentally sold their souls to a game company.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... latestnews

Now, it is the case that this company was doing this as a joke, however, the problem is that given the number of contracts in existence, looking over each contract is a rather difficult thing, however, at the same time, these contracts are binding. If a person can accidentally sell their soul in a contract, then how should we regard contracts? What should we think about systems that express many major social realities in terms of contracts, such as social contract theories and others? Does it make sense to use contracts as a model of social relations given the real issues in human beings signing contracts? If contracts are not a good model for social relations, then how should we think about issues of assent to government and other kinds of issues? How should contract law work if contracts themselves cannot be taken so seriously?


Instead of criticizing contracts perhaps it should be acknowledged that selling one's soul is viewed by sensible people as a funny bit of nonsense and not worth a second thought. Of course Wall street might catch on and start dealing in souls as a profitable enterprise as they have been dealing in worthless mortgages. Imaginary value seems to be an acceptably way to make rather large profits.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Apr 2010, 11:52 pm

Sand wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Recently there was a case where 7500 shoppers accidentally sold their souls to a game company.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... latestnews

Now, it is the case that this company was doing this as a joke, however, the problem is that given the number of contracts in existence, looking over each contract is a rather difficult thing, however, at the same time, these contracts are binding. If a person can accidentally sell their soul in a contract, then how should we regard contracts? What should we think about systems that express many major social realities in terms of contracts, such as social contract theories and others? Does it make sense to use contracts as a model of social relations given the real issues in human beings signing contracts? If contracts are not a good model for social relations, then how should we think about issues of assent to government and other kinds of issues? How should contract law work if contracts themselves cannot be taken so seriously?


Instead of criticizing contracts perhaps it should be acknowledged that selling one's soul is viewed by sensible people as a funny bit of nonsense and not worth a second thought. Of course Wall street might catch on and start dealing in souls as a profitable enterprise as they have been dealing in worthless mortgages. Imaginary value seems to be an acceptably way to make rather large profits.


This is at once funny and deeply disturbing.

I personally hold the view that our souls do not truly belong to us, but rather they are borrowed for a short time lasting a few decades. They have to be returned once we're finished with them, and depending on what we've done with them, we may get our deposits back or we may face penalties.

Therefore, if they are on loan to us and not rightfully our property to begin with, then any contract for the sale of souls is automatically null and void.

It's a very silly thought. They can't be exchanged in sale, but I wonder about subleasing? There was this strange woman who moved in 10 years ago, and at some point she brought in two little people. I didn't ask permission, and the other two just sort of took over, but things seem to be working out.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Apr 2010, 1:02 am

Looked at from a more practical point of view, those guys in Wall street who have walked away with billions of dollars by manipulating US finances to cause major untold miseries on the general population seem to have done rather well in acting soullessly.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Apr 2010, 2:35 pm

This speaks strongly to the inequality of bargaining power and the application of the contra proferentum rule in contracts established in unequal bargaining positions.


_________________
--James


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Apr 2010, 3:29 pm

visagrunt wrote:
This speaks strongly to the inequality of bargaining power and the application of the contra proferentum rule in contracts established in unequal bargaining positions.

Well, sort of, really it speaks more about issues of consent I think and whether consent can really be said to exist in many cases.

Ok, but the question then emerges about social contracts.

Think about it, if the government is justified then something must justify it, and if this something is a contract, then we must admit that the bargaining position of individuals is grossly unequal to that of their governments. If this is then the case, then how can the authority of the government itself not come under some question?

Note: I bring this up because people often look for analytical justification for the world they see to make it all seem right, however, part of my point is to question analytical justifications.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Apr 2010, 4:59 pm

I beg to differ. When a supplier hands me a preprinted contract and says, "sign here," I am still left with two options--to sign or not to sign. If I choose to sign, I consent to be bound by the terms of the agreement.

It is only in a case where someone forces my hand (either literally or figuratively) that consent is vitiated by duress.

The doctrine of interpretation contra proferentum exists for precisely the situation where a party to the contract has unequal bargaining power, but has consented, nonetheless, to be bound by it.


_________________
--James


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Apr 2010, 5:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Think about it, if the government is justified then something must justify it,

Just take the Hobbesian view. Government is legitimized by its necessity.

Quote:
and if this something is a contract, then we must admit that the bargaining position of individuals is grossly unequal to that of their governments.

In modern representative democracies, the government is, at least in principle, subject to the will of the individuals who comprise the electorate. I suppose that would be the typical social contract theory rebuttal to your objections.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Apr 2010, 5:27 pm

visagrunt wrote:
I beg to differ. When a supplier hands me a preprinted contract and says, "sign here," I am still left with two options--to sign or not to sign. If I choose to sign, I consent to be bound by the terms of the agreement.

So you hold that these people literally gave away their souls? Unknowingly? And in a contract that if correct is grossly unequal?

I have to disagree with your opinion here, as while I can see why a person seeking order would accept this, it makes no realistic sense, particularly given how often contracts are rationally signed without sufficient reading of the details.

Quote:
The doctrine of interpretation contra proferentum exists for precisely the situation where a party to the contract has unequal bargaining power, but has consented, nonetheless, to be bound by it.

But in this case, this is completely irrelevant. In the case of government, it would require a reading that is opposed to governmental interests on a number of laws.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Apr 2010, 6:29 pm

How does one sell what does not exist?

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Apr 2010, 6:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
and if this something is a contract, then we must admit that the bargaining position of individuals is grossly unequal to that of their governments.

In modern representative democracies, the government is, at least in principle, subject to the will of the individuals who comprise the electorate. I suppose that would be the typical social contract theory rebuttal to your objections.

Yes, but principles like that are stupid to invoke. Historically this kind of claim has been relatively weak even for the US, which didn't allow for voting by anybody but white, male property owners and which went to war with a group of people who didn't like being under the rules of this society.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Apr 2010, 6:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:
How does one sell what does not exist?

ruveyn


By convincing people it does.



Celoneth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 526

19 Apr 2010, 7:10 pm

A contract for a "soul" is most likely not a valid contract. Valid contracts require there to be relatively equal consideration on each side, otherwise they are gifts or unenforceable promises. Since a soul has no financial value and are of dubious existence, I doubt they would be considered valid consideration in exchange for anything.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Apr 2010, 7:53 pm

Celoneth wrote:
A contract for a "soul" is most likely not a valid contract. Valid contracts require there to be relatively equal consideration on each side, otherwise they are gifts or unenforceable promises. Since a soul has no financial value and are of dubious existence, I doubt they would be considered valid consideration in exchange for anything.


The financial value of a soul, as with the financial value of anything, is an arbitrary figure dependent upon the desires of the purchaser and the willingness of the seller to part with it, whether it has tangible existence or not.at the moment game enthusiasts are operating a market in virtual goods which are just as nonsensical as souls.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Apr 2010, 7:58 pm

There is no legal definition for soul methinks might be wrong but I don know, Guess what I'm saying is write soul on a slip of paper and claim that's your soul. *shrugs*



Celoneth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 526

19 Apr 2010, 8:19 pm

Quote:
The financial value of a soul, as with the financial value of anything, is an arbitrary figure dependent upon the desires of the purchaser and the willingness of the seller to part with it, whether it has tangible existence or not.at the moment game enthusiasts are operating a market in virtual goods which are just as nonsensical as souls.

With a game you're actually getting content that you can use in the game - therefore it has some sort of financial value. You actually get something for what you're paying for. It isn't just what purchaser/buyer agree to - if someone sells you a $400,000 house for $1, chances are that contract will not have sufficient consideration on both sides and will not be valid(depending on circumstances it could be held up on other grounds but that's another issue). A soul cannot be valued, furthermore how can you actually have the transaction - the delivery of the soul from seller to buyer? How would you determine if delivery was insufficient? What constitutes a breach of contract?