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

Post Reply New Topic

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?

I think you guys are missing the point. It seems that the thread was not so much about selling souls as it was an attempt to undermine the validity of contracts in general, and especially the use of a contract analogy to justify the sovereignty of a state over its inhabitants.

Contracts need to be enforced. If they aren't, they are mere pieces of paper. Because this contract can't be enforced, it is without meaning. For example:

I, This Random Person, hereby agree to fly into the sun, by my own free will, one month after my death, and to, at least once every day, verbally agree with this contract from my own free will.

-This Random Person signs using a little digital checkbox. This is binding.

If anyone can enforce this, it has value. I signed it, but if it can't be enforced, it has no value, and will soon be forgotten.

This applies for all contracts, including the Constitution of the United States of America. If it's enforced, it has value. If not, it doesn't. G. W. Bush demonstrated this quite nicely.

Legally there are specific criteria that make up a contract and govern the rules of how contracts are made or enforced. That is what upholds the validity of contracts. People are free to make ridiculous contracts that will never be enforced in a court of law - that's what I got out of the article at least... that or it just gave me an excuse to explore a rather interesting legal hypothetical

As far as social contracts, that's really not a new idea - governments are as strong as long as their people support them, they lose that and the government falls apart and another is formed. If you think about it in a contract sense, the people in general trade their personal sovereignty to the government in exchange for being governed according to certain rules, whether written in a constitution or implied in culture. When the government fails to live up to those terms it is in breach and the people have a right to a remedy. In a democratic country this is typically done through elections, in dictatorships/monarchies typically you get a civil war, coup or revolution... not sure if that's what you meant?

Actually, they probably are valid consideration.

Consideration does not have anything to do with financial value because the courts have upheld things such as swearing off drinking as valid consideration, and in the US the terms have generally been generous and in some nations, consideration is not upheld at all, such as in Germany I think. Additionally, if finances were the only possibility, then we completely ignore things such as sentimental value, such as items that only have high financial value for a very limited set of parties.

Dubious existence *might* have some issue, but given that this is not a million dollars for one soul, this does not seem a problem. Additionally, if you read the article, the offer was only for people who believe in souls, not for those who do not, and this means that the consideration is not dubious on the soul-selling side. If we recognize that part of the contract, then really, this might actually be more than sufficient and even be subject to unconscionability objections more so than consideration objections.

(This is assuming that the court doesn't just throw this out because it is "souls", that being said, are contracts all about courts anyway??? I mean, I doubt that courts invented contracts, only gave them more substance over time, and even further, who decides which is the court to judge this matter, as private judicial services can and do exist.)


Now, this objection is probably bigger. If the contract included a method of delivery required for fulfilling the contract, then it could be enforced as valid, however, the issue of unenforceability is likely enough to invalidate such a contract unless it includes the method of enforcement.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 19 Apr 2010, 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Legally there can be flexibility too, as courts do have some leeway in their decisions. It is not as if legal requirements are matters of logic itself, after all.


Well, that is sort of what I mean, but the question is whether this is actually something we should consider a valid contract or even close to it.

I mean, "the people" aren't an entity that one can form a contract with simply because in order to incorporate, all individuals would have to agree to that, and there is no evidence that all individuals have ever agreed to do that as a group.

As for a trade, a trade involves a conscious and relatively explicit agreement, but in governments none is really made, especially since the terms of any supposed agreement are open for change, arbitrary reinterpretation, and many other things. Not only that, but "certain rules" is never well-specified, especially since nobody knows all of these rules, nobody could know all of these rules, and the set of rules is *constantly* changing.

Even further though, the grounds of the contract are so shaky that it is hard to determine what consideration really is in this case. I mean, what if I don't actually value military protection being a pacifist or a believer in a post-war world, am I still consenting because of where I currently reside? If the current residence belongs to the government, then how can civil war be a valid remedy to the contract, as wouldn't it actually be in utter violation of governmental rights in entering the contract? If the property is really mine, and I am fighting the war against an encroachment on what is mine, then why do I have to accept the government by residing on my property? Can the notion of contracting with the nation really exist without invoking the nation? Can the nation be invoked without bringing up the contract with it? If the nation is itself the contract, then how can it be valid for all people, including those who haven't consented, or are below the nation's dictated age of consent, or other factors?

I'm speaking from the perspective of U.S./Common Law Contracts - other systems are of course different. The drinking example - there is still something that is given up in exchange, with something of sentimental value, there is also something given up in exchange therefore there is valid consideration for both examples. The issue for courts, in terms of consideration, is whether each party is giving something up, in order to distinguish it from a promise which under US/English Common law is not normally enforceable. Though I believe that there are other systems which do uphold promises as binding which renders that argument moot in those systems. I use the issue of court enforceability because typically that is the way we judge whether contracts are valid - even if you go through a private arbitration system, you still typically can go to a court if that does not work out. Courts have the governmental authority to enforce their rulings or to validate private agreements. I still think a "soul" is too dubious to be valued and even if it was possible, you'd still have the problem of delivery. How would the company determine that the seller did not deliver the soul, or that the soul was not the soul promised? How would the seller prove that they were not in breach? It's not like you can take an affidavit from some heavenly being to say whether the company was indeed the proper owner of the soul.

As far as the governmental sovereignty as a contract - I agree it's not an ideal model - I can see why it's made but it's far too simplistic. I personally think it is much more complicated than contract/consent. There's the actual economic/political/military power of the government, people's apathy or implicit acceptance of the government's actions, subgroup divisions, externalities that impact the state, etc. all of which affect the power of the government. Plus there is the issue of enforceability of such a contract as the courts are part of the government, how can they enforce a contract between themselves and "the people." So no, not a valid contract in any real sense except for maybe a broad metaphor.

Well, right, I admitted to the enforceability issue. If one held to a notion of say, a signed declaration of giving up one's right to a soul to the other party, or a token saying "X's Soul" being exchanged, or something else, then I think the contract could still be held to have valid consideration. This circumstance still likely has problems.


Ok, right, well, the issue of a broad metaphor is a moral question often times. Contracts are often invoked to say that people are all actually assenting to the government and thus are in the moral wrong for any act of defiance. I recognize that many political theorists reject the idea of a social contract, such as John Rawls, however, the idea of a social contract is still very popular despite all of the problems.

Even then though, I think the notion of the "ideal contract" has problems due to fact that legal norms are not such simple things, but rather continue to evolve over time. Then again, I think I like the pragmatists more than most do.

They can't. There's no such thing as a soul.

You and I both know you can't prove that. Additionally, if we phrased this as "sell the right to their soul", then this can certainly be done, just as men can have a right to have babies in Monty Python's The Life of Bryan. (you can probably find the clip on Youtube)

That being said, all sorts of made-up things are sold all the time, you just have to have the right token to sell as if it is the real thing.

I doubt they actually are legally binding.

BTW, Fox News is not a reliable news source.

Actually contracts are created all the time for work by artists and writers that doesn't exist.

They probably won't be, but the issue is a joke. If this was more clearly intended by both parties, and written in a manner that could be labeled enforceable(slip of paper, ritual, etc), then it could potentially be binding.

In any case, I doubt that Fox is so unreliable as to completely make this story up. I could be wrong, but, I merely heard about this from someone who linked to Fox, and as such, I don't really care about the political issues involving news sources or why Glenn Beck is the anti-Christ.

Actually contracts are created all the time for work by artists and writers that doesn't exist.[/quote]

That would be a future delivery contract for works that could exist and under which the artist is obliged to create and deliver said works. Contracts for souls are bogus because there are no souls, there never were and they never could be. Human beings are physical beings from birth to death.

ruveyn

That would be a future delivery contract for works that could exist and under which the artist is obliged to create and deliver said works. Contracts for souls are bogus because there are no souls, there never were and they never could be. Human beings are physical beings from birth to death.

ruveyn[/quote]

Since I never got a really good idea of what a soul is I am rather careful about its possibility.

I also can't prove that the universe isn't housed inside the belly of a giant elephant. So what?



Rights are subjective. I don't understand the concept of selling a right. The situation you're talking about is akin to making up a rating (say, 10/10) for an album that doesn't exist, showing that rating to somebody, then saying that you'll sell it to them for some specified amount.

I suppose the idea of selling legal rights makes more sense, but I wouldn't support any government recognising the 'right to one's soul' in the first place, because souls don't exist (I also wouldn't support recognising the right of [people who certainly don't have the ability to have babies] to have babies).