And this perhaps the ground for "necessity knows no law." But is exculpatory only on the basis of after-the-fact judgment whether by self or others. It seems to me, then, that while indeed there may be moments when morality suspends, it is not clear to me that it suspends entirely, or that in that moment we are free of it. And perhaps the loci of being bound lies equally in both fact and act of consideration and choosing. — tim wood

:up:

I think consideration and choice themselves may be a leisure time activity.

The law often makes room for "heat of the moment" because it knows that, while an agent may have had an opportunity to avoid a situation in the first place, that is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking once the shit hits the fan. He can be punished for placing himself in the situation, but excused for acting like a human (animal) in the heat of the moment. In other words, the law is smart enough to know it's limits.

Punishment is usually then designed to dissuade the agent, or others, from making choices that may result in what we consider (in after-the-fact ruminations) to be immoral. Take this Kyle Rittenhouse for example. I think they should burn him down. I might have shot when he shot, but I would not have placed myself in that situation in the first place. And I would not have placed myself there because I am a moral agent; not because some law threatened me with punishment for being stupid. But stupid people exist, and punishment should be designed to dissuade them and other stupid people from acting stupid.

If the law fails to dissuade, it can expect repeat performances. Indeed, it may very well incite. I say burn him down like a murderer to avoid stupidity. Momma needs some schooling too.

But here we are, talking about morality. I don't think that can be equated to acting morally.

The US has a complex system of laws and regulations that deals with treatment and disposal of wastes from industrial operations. The goal is to force the inclusion of the waste management costs in the overall cost of the item. — T Clark

Yes, this was part of my forte back in the day. When I first started out, I was naïve enough to think that "cradle to grave" for hazardous waste actually meant generation of the product to disposal. (I think that was RCRA, not sure any more). But, turns out, cradle is when the waste is created. Thus, the manufacturer of the product is not liable for how the product he makes is actually used, nor for the by-product of the use (waste). The manufacturer of the product gets to take the money and wash his hands of the whole thing. The generation of waste is on the user. So you get a user buying a product cheaper than the real cost, using it, and ending up with 55 gallons of waste that must be legally disposed of at a cost greater than what he paid for the product in the first place, or greater than his profits from sale of what he made with it.

The cost of legal disposal is so great that the barrel can be attached to the bottom of a semi-tractor trailer and dripped out, drip by drip, on an intra-continental trip. Or dumped in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Or at sea. Or run through RVs into RV park dump stations. It's called "midnight dumping."

But what if some "legit" company goes to the science lab and has their scientists dream up a "legitimate" "use" for the waste. Say the waste slows bacterial or mold growth on bread. So they repackage it and sell it to bread companies as an ingredient, on the label. And, because they are huge, and legit, everyone looks the other way, pretends, or is actually as naïve as I was? (As a side issue, they then PR with how they "reduce, recycle and reuse" like a good green company, per RCRA.)

We might say that if the costs cannot be legitimately internalized, then the generator does not have a viable business model and should not be in business. But what if we all *want* what he produces? Think of all the employees, blah blah blah. We end up with the open conspiracy where a "good" person is squeezed out of doing the right thing.

therefore, at least in compatibilist terms, "free will" is neither an independent nor determinative variable. Both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, for instance, provide ample evidence corroborating compatibilism (i.e. deflation of how free "free will" is) with respect to mammalian group behaviors, — 180 Proof

Awesome!

This human/animal, moral/amoral discussion has me wondering: What is stronger evidence of being a moral agent: Being able to sit around and talk about morality, or being moral?

We've got nothing on animals when it comes to being moral.

:up: :strong:

I know, right? I was thinking more from a sociological/morality standpoint but the thread title I used was not very helpful. However, I've noticed these threads can "morph around" to different ideas and tracks, so I'm just reading and learning.

Does it even matter? — TheMadFool

That's a good question too. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad, but if I stop to think about it when good is happening, then I lose it. To stay lost in that beautiful rapture would be the key. Not thinking about it as it happens would be the key. Some times I wish my brain would STFU so I could live something without all it's stupid considerations of logic and morality sticking their nose under the tent.

I wish it would be so easy to lose the bad when it's happening! I've been trained up somewhat to do that (embrace the suck) but it's not easy to be a tough guy. You can stare at a wound and try to enjoy, or defeat the pain. But I can't keep that up for ever. Too bad thinking about the bad won't make it go away.

Regardless, thinking about whether it matters is itself a leisure time activity.

What a remarkable statement. Morality seems more pain/suffering-oriented (negative utilitarianism) and everyone who's been through high school knows enough about how pain operates - at a subconscious level (the unthinking nature of pain :point: Relfex Action)

Moral theories then are mental reflexes - they're not arrived at by a process of step by step logical deduction (reactions, not responses). Obviously, right? — TheMadFool

I've never viewed morality as pain/suffering. It might be considering pain suffering, before or after pain/suffering. But pain/suffering are themselves, morality notwithstanding. For me, morality is the consideration of it, not it.

Moral theories then, are theories. Whether a theory is a mental reflex or not is yet another conisderation that has nothing to do with the event (pain/suffering). It's you and I sitting around talking about it, thinking about it; not living it.

Where's the time to think when someone's skinning you alive? — TheMadFool

:100: :up: :death:

Immortality, a synonym for boring & Death! — TheMadFool

Some Marine wrote an anonymous note on bulletin board in Khe Sanh, Vietnam. It said "For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know."

I think predator and pray and the whole animal kingdom knows that, lives that, dies that, even when they are not fighting.

Some people know how to do that consistently, or so they say. Guys like Eckhart Tolle? Personally, I've not yet been able to master it. I have, however, had glimpses of it; the birth of my son, hunting, and a few other times, usually of beauty or danger.

Living in the now is beyond both logic and morality. Logic and morality are distractions; leisure time activities. They get to sit around before and after facts, ruminating on how living in the now is logical and/or moral (or not).

If that analysis is correct (and I think it is), then living in the now is amoral and a-logical. It's not immoral, or illogical, or moral, or logical. Living in the now does not concern itself with such things. It's too busy living and dying. That's my read on it.

There is no defense of a minimal state, unless one actually champions Big Government; because that is the inevitable result of a minimalist state.

Is there some kind of psychological principle that makes us more inclined towards bad news? What explains the media law - if it bleeds, it leads? — TheMadFool

In my personal opinion (as influenced by personal experience and reading some authors), attraction to action is the result of idle hands. If we have leisure, and if we choose not devote our time to the arts, or others, or sleep, then we seek distraction. We can't just do nothing, or live in the now. So we seek to distract ourselves. Distraction is the key word here, and I'll return to it in a moment.

But I think 180 is correct about the false positives and you are correct about risk aversion. Seeing someone or something else get killed reminds us that it is not us that is getting killed. It also promotes planning on how to not be the one who gets killed. I'm sure there is more to it than that. (As a side note, 180 references "herd species". Our tendency to extend our sympathies to the prey, instead of the equally-deserving predator, may indicate that we are, originally, a prey/herd species. We are now predators, of course, but that alliance of the heart may be a residual thing from when we were not top dog.)

Back to "distraction." I pulled the following, amended, from an old paper I wrote:

"The result of this orgy of reason, caring and might, is a concept which justifies "progress" at the expense of all else. This concept is the supreme and overriding sanctity of human life. So sacred has this concept become that in some circles it even reigns over the quality of life itself, no thing withstanding.

"The sanctity of human life is shown in many ways, not the least of which is our preoccupation with "safety". Safety for our children who will not know the true essence of adventure; safety for ourselves so we lose our ability to deal with adversity; and safety for others so our insurance rates stay low enough that we can afford to pay for our safety. This preoccupation is epitomized by the statement "Lets all play safe to¬gether"27.

"An objective look at our condition would reveal a constant, overwhelming, unsolicited celebration of humanity. Life has been an unbroken exaltation of the accomplishments of man. It has been nothing but us walking around patting ourselves on the back, and raving about the qualities that we supposedly have by choice or by character. We give ourselves credit for breathing and existence deserves a medal. The examples are endless. From the "courageous" infant, born with a handicap, a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world; to the resilient community bouncing back from a flood, as if they had a choice. Local T.V. news stations are famous for fostering this crap. Next to the last few seconds with Charles Curralt28 and a trip to the wilderness now and then, when do we ever do anything that is not absorbed in "us"? Even adulation for the natural world is usually tainted by anthropomorphism or artistic impression:

'In itself life is insipid, because it is a simple "being there." So, for man, existing becomes a poetic
task, like the playwright's or the novelist's: that of inventing a plot for his existence, giving it a character
which will make it both suggestive and appealing. ... ... serious examination should lead us to realize
how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it
essential to divert himself.' Jose Ortega yGasset 9

"In light of these circumstances it is no wonder that man has had the "progress" that he has experienced. As long as people pay at least superficial heed to the golden rule and avoid "unsociable conduct", they can do no wrong. If they can couch their actions in terms of their own or another's benefit then it will be acceptable.

"I've belabored this point both for explanation and to bring home the understanding of just how much baggage we have to leave behind in order to understand, and have a reverence for, the Earth.

Anyway, yGasset was not talking about hunting as the distraction; as if it was a sport. Hunting is living in the now. It is what we do. We are also hunted, and it is good for us to wander alone in predator country. It keeps us on our toes. It keeps us in the moment. There is no distraction or you're dead or hungry.

So, when we see the bleeding on T.V., it leads like porn. It is a reminder of what could be and what still is for the living. But we want all that from the safety of our couch. We die when we don't live.

I once said "Suicide is a leisure time activity." Everything except living and dying is a leisure time activity. We are attracted to life, so we watch it rather than risk living it. I also once said "If life bores you, risk it." Ah, but that couch is calling . . . :worry:

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there). — 180 Proof

:100:

Screw logic! I wanna live! :grin: — TheMadFool

:100:

Yeah, I have. — Srap Tasmaner

Well I haven't. And I've asked.

If you read the thread, you'll also find I've not been arguing Trump. Further, while I haven't been arguing Biden either (in a Biden thread), I've only been arguing party (D&R) issues in response to Street. When I got nothing out of him, it became about his failure to offer suggestions (isn't that part of your search for truth?). Thus, the complaint about him just trying to suppress the vote because he's a Republican plant pretending to be neutral. I called him out.

And:

I'm thinking he thinks:

1. No progress has ever been made;
or
2. Any progress made occurred as the result of magic;
or
3. Any progress made occurred as the result of people abiding his advice.

I haven't seen any of #3, so he must be rolling with #1 or #2? I'd ask, but every time I engage, I find that goodness dies a little bit, and I think that is part of his plan. — James Riley

But you keep talking with him in your pursuit of truth. I wish you all the best. I'm out.

Do you two approve of what StreetlightX pointed out the Biden administration is up to with oil drilling? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't approve of Street.

Why are we talking about Trump at all here? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think I have been.

Doesn’t Biden deserve to be roasted for this? — Srap Tasmaner

Nope. When Michelle Obama says to go high when they go low, I disagree. I go right down there with them. Thus, I'm taking a page from their book. You know, to see how they like it. I'm going to start holding church services on Sunday for our lord and savoir Joe Biden. He can do no wrong. Any alleged wrong is a Q conspiracy drummed up by the Brown Shirts. I fully expect them to rig the election against Joe. All their fake news will be trotted out to hurt poor Joe.

They wanted to divide the country and I'm just giving them their wish.

But the worst thing are those Putin troops who pretend to be neutral, trying to get the Democrats to stay home and not vote. You know, because Democrats are really just stooges for the Republicans. At least that is what I glean from Street. Pray tell: have you ever heard him offer a suggestion? Besides "It's all futile."

Back to philosophy: Since I am no expert, I thought that maybe Street was an adherent to a principle I don't understand. I thought maybe "cynicism." I don't really know if that is a thing, a term of art in the philo community, but I thought it might be. So I thought maybe he was just doing that. But so far I have not found any evidence of him doing to the other side what he does to the Democrats, so I think his actually just a Republican trying, disingenuously, to suppress the vote. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary. Maybe you know him better.

I would love your invitation to quit this thread. Never mind, I'll bow out anyway.

He has no advice. No alternatives, no solutions, no strategy. It's stupid to vote against the worst candidate, because both candidates are awful. Activism is stupid, voting (or not voting) is paramount -- that'll teach 'em. Typical establishment propaganda. — Xtrix

:100:

I'm thinking he thinks:

1. No progress has ever been made;
or
2. Any progress made occurred as the result of magic;
or
3. Any progress made occurred as the result of people abiding his advice.

I haven't seen any of #3, so he must be rolling with #1 or #2? I'd ask, but every time I engage, I find that goodness dies a little bit, and I think that is part of his plan.

There is a big difference between the way thing are and the way they are supposed to be (as laid out by our organic documents). At the end of the day, it's the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.

Chief Justice John Marshal said something to the effect that "It is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is." Marbury v Madison. So the court(s), not the political parties, are supposed to articulate the rule of law, and the executive is supposed to enforce it. The legislature makes laws and the court(s) decide if those laws are Constitutional. I know you know all this, but I reiterate it just in case people lose the idea of what the rule of law is supposed to be.

Some will say Marshal pulled that out of his ass because it's not in the Constitution. But what else would courts do? Play golf? With life time appointments, they are supposed to be above money. Hmmmm.

Get money out of politics ( :rofl: ) and the rule of law is possible. Good luck. In the mean time, we get lip service and a scrap now and then if it serves money's purposes.

In my personal opinion, I never want to live in a world where the lion lays down with the lamb. It's not that I like pain and suffering, but I like life in all its diversity. Pain and suffering are a (hopefully) small fraction of it.

I don't think nature is cruel. I think "cruel" denotes a certain malice, or mens rea. People have that, but most animals I know, don't. Even cats that play with their prey are training. I don't think they are hating on the prey.

I don't think it is good to inflict "unnecessary" pain and suffering, and I think cruelty should be stopped.

Most animas I know, predator and prey, spend the majority of their lives in leisure. Sure, there are intense flurries of action, but there is a great deal of laying around doing nothing. Even fish in the sea (probably one of the most kill-or-be-killed environments, provided they have some semblance of biodiversity left) have time to eat, fertilize, and do other things.

But, like the evening news, if it bleeds, it leads. So your average T.V. documentary isn't going to show you the laying around, burping, farting, fucking, shitting, pissing, eating, playing, teasing, enforcing the pecking order, etc. That's pretty boring to many. The morbid curiosity of leisure time humans must be satisfied.

Is this just a case where two superpowers, like US and Russia during the cold war, would both rattle their sabers — dclements

There are always proxies.

It is crucial to have a professional cadre of Special Operations personnel to make resistance effective; through preparation of the (urban?) battle space, transmission of tactics and strategy to the population, etc. But that is all for naught if the population you are going to be working with is itself divided along fundamental views of what a sovereign should be. (Look at the U.S. and the division prep of Putin, et al). Even conventional forces can be divided.

And it doesn’t help when we are propping up anti-popular sovereigns which don’t comport with western liberal thought. Are we afraid of educating small border states in western liberal ideas?

Preoccupation resilience is the only thing that can make post-occupation resistance a viable threat to the occupier. Resilience prevents preoccupation division. If a population goes into resistance divided, then all the resistance in the world is futile. While an external threat can unite a divided population, it will not do so if one side views the occupier as a liberator.

The most cost-effective work-up for the west is a deep steeping in liberal arts, logic, philosophy, history, argument, reason, languages, political science, sociology, psychology, etc. As divided as this herd of cats might be, they will unite against a common external threat to their diversity. Besides, are we afraid that our ideals can't stand up to oppression in some third world border state of China?

If all we are doing, there and here, is STEM, then we are vulnerable to division.

With our ideals, we not only provide a better resistance defense, but we present a better offensive threat to non-western/liberal states like Russian/China. We don't have to attack: we just put them on their heels trying to hold freedom at bay. There is your deterrence. Off balance, unsure, and tepid: that is what keeps them in their place.

That is how small counties punch way above their weight. And we can help if we are not stupid.

Dartmouth v. Woodward? More generally, I am under the impression that in suits involving government, the government is always a named person. — tim wood

:up: Could very well be. The only contract issues I dealt with involving .gov were USFS "get out the cut" and BLM grazing allotment stuff, and I wasn't deep in that from a contract perspective. Most of my exposure was Bob vs. Joe. :grin:

"Obligation Defined
"A contract is analyzable into two elements: the agreement, which comes from the parties, and the obligation, which comes from the law and makes the agreement binding on the parties. — tim wood

I'm sure you parsed this hair, but for anyone who didn't, the agreement includes offer, acceptance, consideration. The obligation referred to is that which is enforced, often after a finding and ruling in judicial review. This can include any of the equitable rulings related to the education provided by , as well as statutory application (law).

I can understand why the Constitution would apply to executory and executed (but disputed) contracts. Regardless, common law is normally sufficient for a ruling without resorting the Constitution. In fact, I've never heard of the Contract Clause as an issue between private parties. Could be, though.

This gets tricky and most folks simply won't understand it. 501(c)(3)s as I recall are required to do accrual accounting; so, yep, Uncle's Ned's bequest, if entered at all (it could be ignored) is an asset, and assets are expressed as dollars. But they are emphatically not dollars: they're assets! And it can take even some accountants a few years to get that distinction straight. And often there will be a contra-asset for bequests pending, (or) not received, the idea being in at least some reports to negative out non-cash from cash, to net the so-called "quick" assets.

"And rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes." That's counting chickens, and bad joss wherever, however done. Detrimental reliance, at least in this context, both meaning and equaling bad management. — tim wood

That kind of shell game can occur with straight up corps, too (C and S, etc.). From the grantor's perspective, though, it is or can be a write off. It seems they are talking about pending grants, and not current. But you get my meaning. If it's irrevocable then it should be a write off. Another consideration easily imputed by a court.

Contracts are ONLY creations of the state . . . — Ennui Elucidator

No, they are not. States can create contracts, but so can private parties: "An agreement between private parties creating mutual obligations . . ." id. Enforcement does not entail creation. And enforcement only comes after interpretation. And interpretation only comes after disagreement.

or a new global religion — frank

It wouldn't have to be new. But I get your point.

you'd see examples of enforceable contracts that did not involve mutually bargained for consideration. — Ennui Elucidator

It's been over thirty years since school and over twenty since practice, but nothing in that paragraph in any way discounts what I argued. All of it relates to a failure of the meeting of the minds, and they all spring from enforcement actions and defenses. They are incidents where a contract is created or discounted, at law or in equity through efforts to enforce and defend. At no time is a court saying anyone anywhere is entitle to something for nothing. (Except gift, as already addressed.) There is always something and that something is consideration. If there is no consideration, then there was no contract and nobody is entitled to anything (except maybe fees and costs :wink: ). Can it be imputed? Yes, but something is there, or there is no contract, oral or written, at law or in equity. And that is the case the world around for thousands of years.

This view has been adopted in at least two states on public policy grounds: "The real basis for enforcing a charitable subscription is one of public policy — Random Article

Emphasis added.

Like I referred to above in reference to the state: it can do whatever it wants. A state can exercise eminent domain and can even unilaterally void contracts as a sovereign. It can also place the burden on innocent buyers instead of innocent victims. (The U.S. is lucky in that it has a "takings" clause and federal tort claim waivers of sovereign immunity and other protections, but I digress.)

The point here is, the Restatement is simply acknowledging that the state can do the exact opposite of what we were talking about. The plaintiff need not prove consideration (it wouldn't anyway, with a gift) or detrimental reliance (gift). That is imputed by the state on public policy grounds. Nor is there a burden on a defendant to discount detrimental reliance. It is presumed:

"Charities and nonprofit organizations rely heavily on contributions from their constituents for financial support. Donations take many forms—from ticket sales to subscriptions to fundraising auctions. Often, however, patrons make significant donations through pledges to be fulfilled after death by their trusts or estates. Depending on the magnitude of the pledge, an organization may include it as an asset in its publicly-available financial reporting and rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes. But is a charitable pledge legally enforceable if the donor's trustee or personal representative refuses to honor it?" https://www.millernash.com/firm-news/news/enforceability-of-a-charitable-pledge-agreement-against-a-donors-estate-or-trust

Note the distinction between the donor and the trustee or personal representative. That is another public policy reason since you don't have a party to the contribution to testify. Their actions are stipulated in the contribution. It's similar to a dying declaration or a statement against interest.

In short, you still have a gift, but it's been transmogrified by the state into a contract. Not the other way around.

In this sense, God (if one were to exist) would be natural as it would be the creator of the natural world, and has an effect on the natural world. — Harry Hindu

Even God can make mistakes. :grin:

Supernatural and artificial only make sense in the light of the natural which makes the natural fundamental. — Harry Hindu

My view of God is All, so that would account for all that we can fathom, and more, and less, and not.

Anyway, I agree with you on a fundamental level. It's just a matter of convenience to distinguish between us and everything else. But maybe that is part of the problem. On the one hand, if we view ourselves as natural, then really, we can do no wrong. We just point and say "Nature made me do it!" And even if we agree that we can still be natural *and* do wrong, we are still inclined to let ourselves off the hook in an open conspiracy. On the other hand, if we deem ourselves separate, we tend to deem ourselves as better, or special, instead of merely different. That gives excuse to devalue and marginalize everything else in nature.

We always take the best of both worlds, coming and going. Lacking in grace and gratitude, with an abundance of fear and insecurity, we spin everything toward us.

Those who can’t differentiate between parties simply want to sound intelligent, when in reality it’s intellectual laziness. — Xtrix

:100: I think you nailed it with the civil rights analogy. "Okay all you folks, head on home, now. Nothing to see here." I think some want MLK's arc to take a 90 degree turn, and right now. Either that, or they are on the other side. I'm thinking there may not be much difference.

But if we are just going to hand wave and dismiss such trends because they don't sit right with our intuitions, I suppose there is nothing more to be said. — Ennui Elucidator

That is how I perceived the OP. Who knew it would lead where it went? (Rhetorical question.)

I question, however, whether strict adherence to caveat emptor in a worldwide market would be a net social good. — Ennui Elucidator

I think the social good comes from the state mandating that the public help it do it's job, or suffer the consequences. Pawn shops are notoriously on their toes, and that creates a black market where buyers should know better. There is also insurance. A buyer can cover his losses if he buy's stolen goods. The insurer levels premiums and proposes protocols to prevent claims. That way the legit grocery store, while still having the incentive to buy lettuce from reputable sellers, can pass the cost on to consumers.

One way around this (as I mentioned before) is to have the state provide basic services such that theft is not as prevalent as it would be where people feel the need to steel. And if you are a victim of theft, you can always have the state fill the gap. But I tossed that out back there in anticipation of the argument that the U.S. has a high crime rate. It does, but that has nothing to do with burdens of theft being placed on innocent BFPs.

Assuming for a moment that you don't think either quantum meruit or promissory estoppel qualify (consideration, even if trivial, is made by/expected from both parties to the claim), how about the enforcability of charitable pledges? — Ennui Elucidator

I thought that was covered by our discussion of gift (and detrimental reliance), which I intended to cover all the other nuance. If I offer to give you something for nothing, and you accept, then you will need to have detrimentally relied upon my promise in order to recover.

My only gripe is of your square peg notion of humans, as if they are so different from everything else as to require a special term or meaning for a term when used in reference to humans only. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Don't be distracted by my extrapolation. I said:

At the end of the day, however, it's all natural. — James Riley

I think Christopher Stone likened it to an ontological problem where, at the end of the day, we are but play things made of straw. (Old Chinese thing?)

I'm done. — Benkei

Okay. I'll quit waiting.

You already mentioned deterimental reliance, i.e. promissory estoppel, so there was no need to mention it, let alone argue about it. — Ennui Elucidator

Like gift, it was used as a stand-in for all the rest. Meaning, all the rest was not illustrative on the argument about offer-acceptance-consideration. Neither I nor Benkei was talking about the case where there is no agreement (no meeting of the minds).

In any event, how about "Market Overt" for a more on point reference for purposes of the OP. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, it was understood that some people think the burden is upon the victim and some don't.

Is that a sufficient topical reference or do we really need to go down the path of the history of inadequacies of mutually bargained for consideration as the only method by which one party can be obligated to pay the other in the absence of a tort? — Ennui Elucidator

Emphasis added. And there you have it. I'd ask you to explain that to Benkei but he is done.

And here is random cite in case you need a nudge.

Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Primary tabs
Definition — Ennui Elucidator

You just made my point. I don't need the nudge. Benkei does.

P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation.

The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well— a shame you weren’t around to tell them to give up. I’m sure they could have used the enlightenment of an Internet philosophy forum poster. — Xtrix

:100:

Imagine still being confused about how to vote. — Xtrix

Voting is like a needle: It's either scary or it's inconvenient. Some people try to make it scarier and less convenient. Others try to make it less scary and more convenient.

I didn't say there was a unilateral amendment. I said there's no consideration. — Benkei

But if there is no unilateral amendment, then there IS consideration. DOH! It takes at least two to agree, two to contract. Consideration is what they agree to exchange. If there is no unilateral amendment, then what was given or foregone to permit the change in the original agreement? Whatever that was, was the consideration, either as permitted in the original contract, or by amendment.

Now I am about to teach you a lesson, so please pay attention and learn. You said:

The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for. — Benkei

BINGO! That is the consideration! Read your own words again: "The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for." Offer, acceptance, consideration.

So the other party agreeing to pay more is not an enforceable contract under UK law or US law. — Benkei

Yes, it IS. If they AGREE then it is enforceable. If they do not agree, then it is not enforceable. You know why? Because there was no agreement. There was not contract. Gift or contract, your choice.

But I'll await you example of a contract without consideration. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract.

For the umpteenth time. — Benkei

For the umpteenth time, you failed to provide an example. That is because you don't know what you are talking about. If you disagree, then all you have to do is give a simple example. Here, let me help you get started. I assume we can agree that it takes at least two parties to agree. One party is "A" and the other party is "B". "A" offers. What does "A" offer? Help me out here. "B" accepts. What did "B" accept? Did he accept something for nothing? Or did he accept something for something? You take it from there. I'll wait.

Other jurisdictions don't require consideration for a valid and enforceable contract - — Benkei

I'll wait. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract.

Plenty of scholars who argue in the US that a clear intent to be bound by the terms by one party and detrimental reliance on the part of the other party should be sufficient - — Benkei

I already taught you about detrimental reliance. That can occur in gift or contract. So don't start trying to pull yourself out of the hole you dug by now admitting you have learned, while at the same time denying it.

I really don't get what's so difficult to grasp here. Different countries, different rules. — Benkei

I'll wait.

Look, if you people call a horse a cow, then okay, we have a definitional issue. You can call a table a contract if you want.

My friend took the money, moved to Chicago, and never looked back. — Book273

Emphasis Added. Wow. I do live in a different world.

Cops don't get to avail themselves of the fruit of a poisonous tree. Neither do criminals or tortfeasors. There is a long litany of moral, ethical, philosophical and legal support behind it. But I'll just let the law works it's magic on anyone stupid enough to try and buck that history in other than a rhetorical pile of BS.

Aren't pledges enforceable or unenforceable? A person can make a pledge to a charitable institution then renege on it. No consequence to the donor, except maybe piss off the would-be recipient. But if the donor received a consideration for their pledge -- say, in the form of naming a building after the donor's name -- then it becomes a contract, which is enforceable. (US contract law). Is this right? — Caldwell

Generally it has to do with detrimental reliance. If the recipient reasonably relied upon the pledge to his/her/its detriment, then yes, they can sue for damages.

But if you offer to give me something and I accept, then renege, what are you going to do? Sue me and try to force me to accept the gift? Unless you, as the giver, reasonably relied upon my acceptance, and did so your your detriment, there is no enforceable contract.

If there was consideration (naming the building?), then it's a contract that can be enforced. The issue again: damages.

But apparently where lives, there is an enforceable contract in the first and second instances. If he offers me a gift and I accept it, then reject it, he can force me to accept it, or force me to pay him some money for my failure to accept it. Or if he promises to give me something for nothing and I accept, I can sue him for failing to give it to me, or I can force him to give me something for nothing. I don't know what the damages would be, since I haven't detrimentally relied upon anything. Apparently that doesn't matter.