Welcome to the new US

Post #130,725 by JayMehaffey 12/14/03 6:26:42 PM Reply	Welcome to the new US Welcome to the new US, where speech is (relativly) free of government interferance, but doesn't matter because you signed it away to a company for a 10% discount. Jay
Post #130,727 by orion 12/14/03 6:46:57 PM Reply	Can't you sue that it is Unconstitutional? Or does that not apply to contracts? If so, what about a contract that has a clause about making you a slave of the corporation under certain conditions? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,730 by ben_tilly 12/14/03 7:06:53 PM 12/14/03 10:12:12 PM Reply	I see that you don't choose to understand the Constitution There is no right to free speech. Rather, there is a limit on government's ability to pass laws regulating speech. This has no bearing on your ability to sign a bad contract. Here is the text of the [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/\|first amendment]. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But a contract making you a slave is unconstitutional. Here is the text of the [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/\|thirteenth amendment]. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. What exactly constitutes slavery or involuntary servitude is a good question. I saw a report once that some people were looking into challending music industry contracts based on the thirteenth amendment. I don't know what happened with that though. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi] Edited by ben_tilly Dec. 14, 2003, 10:12:12 PM EST Expand All History
Post #130,748 by Arkadiy 12/14/03 9:17:17 PM Reply	Well, any law used to enforce such a contract would become unconstitutional. I wonder if such an argument could be advanced. -- "There's nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It does not speak French, it does not speak English, it does not speak German and it moves very fast." -- Jean Chretien
Post #130,752 by orion 12/14/03 9:39:38 PM Reply	That is what I thought if you resist it, the law takes over. But the Constitution specifically says Congress and not the Supreme Court or other governmental body. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,800 by ben_tilly 12/15/03 10:12:22 AM Reply	The argument fails The basis of contracts is common law. No statutory law need be passed for contracts to be enforcable in the courts. Here is an [link\|http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts.html\|overview]. Furthermore the interpretation of the Constitution is a complex business. A law saying that you can't speak at all is unconstitutional. A law saying that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a different story entirely. Where in the spectrum would a law fit that said that you can say anything that you want, but can agree to give up that right? Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #130,810 by jb4 12/15/03 11:27:42 AM Reply	Beg to differ. (I knew this real estate course I'm taking would come in handy...I just didn't know how soon) Actually, there is statutory basis for real-estate contracts...at least here in Illinois. Tejas, being "a whole 'nother country" as I would paraphrase their PR ads from a couple of years back, has different laws than Illinois so YMMV. For example, they are a "title-theory" state, which means that the mortgage lender doesn't just hold a lien agains your property, s/he holds title until you pay it off. So if KB Home does the financing, they can conceiveably enforce the restriction by calling the loan against recalcitrant troublemakers like me. However, if you sign a contract with the offending language deleted, that's legal. Will the "other side" sign it? Dunno...probably not. But then you have basis for bringing suit for all sorts of nuisance discrimination charges, since these days everybody is a minority, and the civil rights statutes regarding real estate sales are not to be trifled with, not even in Tejas. jb4 "There are two ways for you to have lower Prescription-drug costs. One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper ... or you can elect me President." John Kerry
Post #130,814 by ben_tilly 12/15/03 11:50:50 AM Reply	Beg away The statutes are on top of and overriding general common law. Laws modify what may be done with specific kinds of contracts. For example many terms that landlords like to put into tenant agreements are simply not enforcable due to local city or state laws. For instance in NYC the landlord does not have the right to enter the premises at any time, no matter what you signed. Or they can modify what you have to do to have a contract. Normally a verbal agreement is an enforcible contract if you can prove that it exists, but in real estate it is not because there are laws saying that it has to be on paper. But if I invented something, say flubules, and you wanted to sign a contract with me giving you access to a particular flubule that I made in return for money, that contract would be legally binding on both of us even if there are no statutory laws governing flubules. In fact if there are no laws, then it doesn't have to be in writing. (But there must be adequate consideration. If I tell you to use it any time, and then change my mind, I've not broken a contract. But if you paid me money and I change my mind, I have broken a contract.) So while statutory laws can and do modify what contracts are enforcable, contracts are enforcable even if no statutory law exists. See the same [link\|http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts.html\|overview] that I pointed out earlier. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #130,865 by Arkadiy 12/15/03 3:58:35 PM Reply	Much longer shot . when police actually comes to take down the sign, will the law about policing power become unconstitutional? I guess I am grasping at the straws here. -- "There's nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It does not speak French, it does not speak English, it does not speak German and it moves very fast." -- Jean Chretien
Post #130,878 by ben_tilly 12/15/03 4:18:34 PM Reply	I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work that way How is this fundamentally different than a contract requiring employees to respect their employer's trade secrets? Unless there is a law that renders the specific item null and void (IANAL, ask a lawyer, there may be), I think that you are on the hook. It should be the same as the various license agreements for databases that don't let you report your benchmarks. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!