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

Post Reply New Topic

The promise of a soul would fail as consideration at Common Law.

Consideration must be capable of being expressed in economic terms, in other words it must have certainty. Anything physical object that has a tangible value can suffice as can a promise of action that generates value or a forebearance from action that would invoke a cost.

But where the promise is for delivery of something that cannot be identified, delivery of which cannot be confirmed and the economic value of which cannot be measured, then it fails as consideration.

No, selling your rating for the made-up album.



I don't have a problem with that. All I've said is -

(1) You can't sell your soul, because it doesn't exist.
(2) It only makes sense to me to talk of selling rights that are recognised by the government, but
(3) I wouldn't support the government recognising the 'right to one's soul'.

Regarding (2), I don't think there's anything special about the government. But I can sort of understand how you might be able to sell your rights that are recognised by them, because of the possible practical impact. If A says he will sell his right to clean water to B, and there are no other parties involved, that seems to me a meaningless gesture. However, if the government is protecting his right to clean water by interfering with B's activities, A could make an arrangement with the government that they refrain from protecting that right.

If you want to sell the right to your soul to somebody, you are welcome to do so. The buyer will be disappointed, of course. You're also welcome to rate a non-existent album, and sell that rating to somebody. Just because I'm okay with people doing x doesn't mean x makes any sense to me.

Actually, I think the bigger issue is identification and actually doing it, not confirmation or measurability. Courts don't care about the adequacy of consideration in most cases.

In one case, Hamer v Sidway, an uncle promised a nephew $5000 to refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing billiards or cards for money until his 21st birthday. The nephew did so. The courts upheld the nephew's actions as valid consideration. There is great difficulty in confirming that the nephew refrained from these things though, and there is no economic value for refraining from these actions. However, it was still valid consideration. Now, if refraining from these acts is valid consideration, then I don't see why any reasonably defined process of soul transference would not be consideration, regardless of whether souls exist or not.

Um.... you'll have to tell me how this is a good or service. Selling a soul could potentially be considered a good but possibly be made into a service.

I suppose selling a review is a service and a rating is a much reduced variant of this, and so if one can sell a made-up rating(which sounds quite comedic) then I don't see how one couldn't sell a made-up rating.


You can't prove 1, and if the contract presupposes the falsity of 1, then I don't see the problem so long as both parties are in total agreement with the character of the contract.

The issue with 2, is that it forces us to look for explicit legal protection for anything sold, when such protection could potentially be implicit. I mean, let's say that one forms a contract with a priest for a sacred ceremony, is the right to give sacred ceremonies granted by the government? No, but a priest can still give one and enter a contract to provide one. Now, there are issues with enforcement due to phrasing, but there is nothing wrong with this matter.

The idea of getting into a deal about avoiding gambling, smoking, or drinking does not tend to seem rational to me, but people can do it. I don't care whether people smoke, or drink, or gamble to many great extents though.

Measurability is not the same thing as value. A piece of art may be impossible to value, given that it is a unique commodity, but it is, nonetheless, measurable, in the legal and the economic sense.

Similarly, the question of "confirmation," as you describe it is an evidentiary question of fact, not a question of sufficiency of consideration. Consideration is not invalidated because the court must accept, perforce, an uncorroborated statement in support of a negative assertion. The nephew's viva voce declaration that he forebore is evidence of delivery, and if the court finds him credible, no further evidence is required. If the court finds that he is not credible, then the contract is unenforcable not because of insufficiency, but because of a failure to demonstrate delivery.

As for economic value, there is a measurable value in the nephew's forebearance. In the uncle's estimation, the nephew may have wasted less money on vice; may have made himself more productive; may have been more studious, and hence better equipped himself--all of these things have economic value. It is well established in law that consideration must flow from the promisor, but it does not have to flow to the promisee. "Mow my mother's lawn and I will pay you $20," is a valid contract, even though the value flows to a third party.

The way to establish a money value is to auction off the art work. The value is precisely the highest bid.

As to value flowing to a third party, you have misidentified the situation. When you pay someone to produce a good or service which will finally end up in the hands of yet another person (the third party) you are simply buying a present. The value of the present, be it a good or service with what the buyer and the vendor of the good/service agree upon.

ruveyn

You can't prove souls exist, you can't provide evidence souls exist, you can't put a value on a soul - you can't prove performance therefore you can't prove that the contract was performed as agreed or was breached.

A priest providing a ceremony has a financial value - in fact they tend to have set rates for services - which means they are easily valued and you can easily enforce such a contract.

Why look so deeply into this? One party is giving up their immortal souls, and the other is offering them a service. If both parties believe in this stuff, so what. Is anyone going to sue? This wouldn't even make it into court. It's a joke. If there's no proof that a souls exists, who cares? It doesn't make a difference. If there is no way to prove there was a transaction, who cares? Both parties believe there was, so why not let them have their fun? There is no point in arguing over technicalities.

(All questions were rhetorical.)

when i was a kid i sold my soul for roller blades...................hindsight i could have gotten alot better stuff if i waited

Um.... ok? So, you are saying that sentimental objects, ones that only have value to a very limited set of parties cannot be a part of a contract? That seems sort of problematic.

Additionally, you are saying that a market exchange for an item cannot occur until a market for this item exists. That also seems kind of absurd, as markets for items exist because people start selling these items and other buy them, so the purchases create the market, not the market creating the purchases. Which means, that I don't see how your argument works simply because a soul is a new item.



Well, the issue of performance is the one issue I've accepted, *but* it's an issue with clear and easy workarounds, as all one has to do is describe how performance will take place, (writing, ritual, etc) and then the contract would then be valid.


Well, ok? But couldn't the same objection be given about the matter of souls? I mean, if I entered a contract to mow grass, then I don't have to describe how the mowing will take place or even what mowing is so long as it is recognized by both parties what is being talked about, correct? Why can't it be the same with the sale of souls?

As for economic value, honestly, if you've actually studied economics, you have to recognize that the very notion of "economic value" is so squishy that trying to invoke it as an absolute thing seems ridiculous. Economists are explicitly value-subjectivists who claim that economic value belongs to anything that a person will pay money for, so, unless you are trying to say that economic value has no relation to what the economists themselves say it is, then I kind of have to regard this as silly. As for the abstinence thing, a similar case could exist for a person buying a soul, as they might think that this transaction will make them wiser, healthier, happier, etc. Or they might think that there will be a resale market in the future, where they can make the deal now and make more money later, an assumption that is outside the court's jurisdiction, particularly given that worthless things are sold all of the time.(such as with homeopathy) So, really, I have to say that the "no economic value" objection is kind of silly, especially since a contractual agreement to purchase something is a sign of economic value. Purchases create markets that allow for market values to be established in the first place, not markets allow for purchases because then new products could never exist.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 21 Apr 2010, 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

I sense that you may be misunderstanding me. I maintain that you can't sell souls, because I don't believe they exist (I also don't believe I have to prove anything here) - it's certainly possible for people to claim that they have a soul, and for other people to believe them and ask to buy it. However, since they don't have a soul, the former isn't actually selling their soul, and the latter isn't actually buying it.

All I've been doing in my last few posts, though, is explaining why selling a right to one's soul doesn't make sense to me. I don't have a problem with people doing it, and I also don't think that everybody else shares my view that it doesn't make sense.

So, I would say: 1) You can't sell an album that doesn't (and never will) exist (you can't sell your soul). 2) You can sell your rating for the album that doesn't exist (you can sell your right to a soul).

I'm not aware of any government that grants the right to give sacred ceremonies, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If a government did grant the right to give sacred ceremonies, I'd be able to understand somebody choosing to sell that right. I suppose this right could be granted by any third party, and that would have just as much legitimacy as a right granted by the government (in my opinion, anyway), so perhaps it was a mistake to limit myself to speaking about legal rights.

Last edited by you_are_what_you_is on 21 Apr 2010, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Psh, that's not a real concern. People sell homeopathic medicine all the time, and it certainly is a contradiction in terms, so I don't see why souls is worse.

I disagree. They're not selling it. They're selling something, but not what they are trying & claiming to sell (because it doesn't exist).

Well, the buyer and the seller agree that they're selling it. You can phrase this differently, but it really has no bearing on how they label the contract, and only limited bearing on how they'll publicly label the contract to ensure outside parties consider it valid. This is to say that I have very limited concern about these kinds of issues.

And I think they are wrong.



So? That's a different point. All I'm saying is that you can't sell x if x doesn't exist. I doubt my opinion will make them label the contract differently, or make all outside parties consider it invalid. This much should be fairly clear based on my previous comments - it's certainly possible for people to claim that they have a soul, and for other people to believe them and ask to buy it. However, since they don't have a soul, the former isn't actually selling their soul, and the latter isn't actually buying it.

No, you gave the example of a priest doing a ceremony - which has easily determinable value - I was responding to that. Sentimental objects do have value in a contract - how much value and whether they are sufficient consideration is a question of fact depending on the individual circumstance.


No, because if a party decides that the piece of paper that has X's soul on it, does not actually contain the soul in their opinion - how do they prove/disprove that?


A contract between parties does not establish economic value - that would render the entire issue of consideration to be useless as parties could just offer nominal consideration for their promissory exchanges.


If the homeopathic remedy is delivered and is the homeopathic remedy that was bargained for then it is a valid exchange. If the remedy claims to be effective for something it isn't then the buyer can sue for breach of contract.