By Anglo-Saxon definitions. If I accept a gift, there was a gift offered and accepted, which results in a valid contract under Dutch law and every other European jurisdiction — Benkei

Help this Anglo-Saxon dummy from America: If you offer to give me a gift and I agree to accept it, then what contract is there to enforce? Unless and until there is detrimental reliance (i.e. consideration) then there is no valid contract. I suspect you don't know what you are talking about. :roll:

Another example is an amendment to a contract where the scope of work doesn't change but the contractor simply asks for more money because of underestimated circumstances. No consideration either, valid under any continental jurisdiction as a contractual amendment and therefore a contract. Not so under UK law (barring some exceptions even there under UK law that no consideration is required). It's fine if you don't believe me but repeating the rules of your own jurisdiction is just stupid. — Benkei

So you can unilaterally amend a contract in Dutch Land, without a provision therefor in the agreement? How's about you just say "Hey, I'm not going to pay. But thanks for building this house for me." Is that how you do it over there? No, it's not. I don't care how long you've practiced law in the Neverlands. You have offer, acceptance and consideration. The Dutch aren't stupid.

Again, here is your argument: "I offer you this for nothing." To which I respond "Cool. I accept that for nothing." That's called a gift. Not a contract.

If there are incidentals, or cost over-runs, or cost-plus clauses in the contract, or provisions for contingent renegotiation or a change in consideration, then there has already been offer, acceptance and consideration. If not, then the contractor can ask until he's blue in the face. Unless and until there is a renegotiation (new offer, acceptance, consideration), then the the old offer, acceptance, consideration will control.

I'm not repeating the laws of my own jurisdiction. I'm now begging you, on bended knee, to show me a contract that lacks consideration and which is not a gift. What is there to enforce? Nothing.

Just draw one up for me. Real simple, because I'm an American and we are notoriously stupid.

a gift can be refused, so there's offer and acceptance, which makes it a contract. And no, the doctrine of consideration did not exist before 1500. — Benkei

No, if it is refused, there is no contract, by definition. If it is accepted without consideration, it is a gift. There is no contract.

And you must have a misunderstanding regarding the definition of "consideration." The first time a human said "I will give you this for that" and the other human said "okay." You had offer, acceptance and consideration. That occurred thousands of years before 1500.

Great. What is intuition? What is moral intuition? — tim wood

I'm thinking it might be confirmation bias. If you are standing on the bones of victims, one might contort morality to justify it, and call that moral. Just a guess. "Aww shucks! It weren't me what done it!"

I guess it's hard for a US citizen to imagine things can and do work differently elsewhere. — Benkei

Like I said, it's not a U.S. invention. It's been around since Christ was a Corporal, and long before that. The essence of contract is that you don't give or get something for nothing.

So even in your own legal system there's recognition of contracts that do not contain consideration. — Benkei

I asked you to give me an example. Gift is the best you can do. Gift is not contract.

A contract is an agreement, even in the Nederlands. Consideration = something. Wait, let me repeat that: "Consideration" = "something."

But every animal and natural process is "different" in their own way. So again, you could only be assuming that humans are special in some way. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Every animal and natural process is "special" in their own way. But "special" has a higher/better/superior ring to it. At least in my mind. Thus, I find use of the term "different" to be more equalizing and accurate.

Seems that one can only make that assertion if they assume that humans are special in some way, but then what would you expect a human to initially believe about their relationship with the universe? — Harry Hindu

I would like them to stop using the word "special." I think "different" would be less value-loaded.

So maybe environmentalists are the one's trying to hold back the universe from evolving towards it becoming what it is destined to be given its properties. — Harry Hindu

Indeed. They are conservatives that way. And I am one of them. Hell, I'm reactionary: Back to the Pleistocene!

you likely bought the stuff from a store and had no reasonable grounds to believe any untoward act had occurred in the making of said items. — Book273

That would be a question between you and the seller. Why did you buy from him at that price, instead of elsewhere at a different price? Regardless, that is no concern of the victim

Seems rather ridiculous to me. The claim is on the thief, or initial criminal, not the rest of the honest, good-faith, individuals farther down the food chain. — Book273

People who buy stolen goods aren't honest. And, even if they were, it's on them, not the victim to unscrew their mistake. And yes, it is their mistake. They should pay for their mistake. Not the victim. To make the victim pay is ridiculous and unjust.

.

P.S. A gift is not a contract. Though, in the U.S., one can have detrimental reliance on the promise of a gift. So, if you promise to give me $100k for nothing, and I accept, telling you I am going to start the construction process on my new house, intending to use the gift, and you don't stop me, then I have detrimentally relied upon your promise. A court in equity would ask if it was reasonable for me to be so stupid as to believe someone was going to give me $100k for nothing. If so, then you might have to pony up. But it won't be in contract.

A gift is not a contract. If you induced me to rely on you, without consideration, we have fraud if you knew you weren't going to come through, and civil liability if you didn't know.

P.S.S. As to my alleged U.S. myopia, I think the principles I have laid out existed in the merchant bazaars around the world, long before the Spanish set foot in Hispanola.

We don't, never have and never will. — Benkei

Okay, so the Dutch don't contract. Got it. Hmmm. Give me an example. "I offer something for nothing." And "I accept your offer of something for nothing." We're good. :roll:

You only have equitable remedies. I don't think the US has equitable courts though so how does that work? Or can you go to civil court to get an equitable remedy? — Benkei

Our courts act at law (Constitutional/Statutory) and in equity (Common Law, precedents).

:up:

In the Netherlands you can enforce a promise?
— tim wood
Yes. Everywhere in Europe actually. — Benkei

You can enforce a promise in the U.S. too. But you need offer, acceptance and consideration. Same as in the Netherlands: https://dutch-law.com/acceptance-dutch-law.html It's just not called "consideration." But it won't be presumed people are contracting for nothing.

I get what you are doing, but you are not engaging with the OP. I'm assuming certain premises to make a counterargument against the viable solution to the problem of evil that Bartricks provided. — ToothyMaw

Agreed:

I agree. There is a presupposition among some that God is omnibenevolent, by definition. — James Riley

I was agreeing with:

Says who? If there is God why he should be a "good" one? It's a false premise where you built your argument on. Same Bartricks did at his own thread. — dimosthenis9

An accepted gift. — Benkei

That's not contract.

Based on your preconceptions of justice. In the real world it works perfectly well and answers to people's idea of justice perfectly fine. You're just to stuck in what you know which means you have trouble wrapping your mind around it. The original owner is usually left with more than just owning the original as he gets whatever amount he needs to replace it. Replacement value is usually higher than the actual value. Where it concerns unique items, the likelihood that the duty of care on the buyer is met decreases significantly. — Benkei

You are wrong, Benkei. It does not work perfectly well in the "real world" whatever that is. I can wrap my mind around the concept of good faith perfectly well. I just recognize the recourse is against the person who sold me something he did not own. I can't leave on the victim to deal with the thief. When you say "the owner is usually . . ." that is BS. First of all, "usually" doesn't cut it. It presumes the thief has resources to make the victim whole. Then it presumes the victim has the resources to pursue the thief. Then it presumes everything has monetary value (so I get $100.00 for the watch my dead wife gave me on our wedding day).

A society doesn't deter crime by making it lucrative. To the extent non-U.S. countries deter crime, it is by making theft unnecessary with social programs; not by protecting BFPs.

Just no. That's a purely Anglo-Saxon thing, which everybody in the rest of the world scoffs at. — Benkei

Show me where in the world a contract exists with offer and acceptance alone, but without any consideration? I want to make sure I never do business there.

Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance. — Benkei

You not only need offer and acceptance; you need consideration. The buyer can give money but the seller has nothing to give in return for the money. Thus, there is no contract. If the buyer gave money for something the seller did not have to sell, that is between the parties.

o back and read again what I wrote about good faith, because this is again a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I would think as a trained lawyer you'd actually be interested in realising there are different approaches possible — Benkei

Go back and read what I wrote acknowledging the BFP. That does nothing for the victim. Nothing. Justice doesn't care about a buyer's good faith. The buyer should beware, and if he's not, tough. His recourse is against the person he had the transaction with. In other words, I did NOT misrepresent what you said, blatantly or otherwise. I specifically calculated the good faith, as I did with Bartricks, and found it wanting.

It's not just the Netherlands, it's continental Europe. Definitely since the code civil and possibly since the Codex Justinianus depending on how old caveat emptor is exactly. — Benkei

Like I said above, buyer beware. Not seller, not victim: buyer.

In any case, I don't recognise anything of what I explained in your childish simplification except an idiotic arrogance that the system you grew up with is the only sensible one. — Benkei

How worse the state that backs the hand of a thief, or backs the buyer who benefits from theft? That buyer bought on the street because it was cheaper than going into a store and buying legit. But even then, pawn shops know the drill. At least in the U.S. If that is idiotic arrogance, I'll take it. Too bad we don't protect the victims of U.S. gunboat diplomacy and imperialism. We are like the Dutch, et al, that way.

Says who? If there is God why he should be a "good" one? It's a false premise where you built your argument on. Same Bartricks did at his own thread. — dimosthenis9

I agree. There is a presupposition among some that God is omnibenevolent, by definition. That's just human beings projecting, like they have a habit of doing. It could very well be that God just has a different sense of humor and laughs every time a so-called "injustice" befalls someone. It's the stuff of sit-coms, after all. Conflict, drama. No lions lay down with any lambs in this play.

Maybe some bacteria needs something to eat and it can't chow down so long as those pesky anti-bodies are standing in the way. Thus, God is omnibenevolent and allows that car accident or cancer or murder to occur so that bacteria can eat, unmolested. God is, after all, a God of bacteria; not humans. Bacteria are the center of the universe. Bacteria are the measure of all things. Then we, thinking we are God, try to interrupt that poor bacteria with formaldehyde. We are so stupid. God laughs.

What is the purpose of justice? — Philosophim

I think the purpose of justice is to entice people into the system with promises of redress, and then exhaust the financial and emotional resources of the parties to such a point they will no longer be able to engage in self-help. Split the baby and make sure no one is happy, but they are too worn out to do anything about it.

That is how the peace is kept.

No arguments - we just wait for James's pronouncements. — Bartricks

It's called "Philosopher King." I like it. As long as I'm the King. Maybe if I go out and steal a bunch of shit, or if I have it laundered, then I'll be on my way! Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll buy shit from America that they stole from Indians and slaves. Maybe even shit made in Asia for 14 cents an hour! Cool. Now bow down before me, serf!

Then please explain why Dutch law protects the buyer of stolen goods if he acted in good faith (barring goods registered in public register). Good faith would be he wasn't aware and was, given the circumstances, not required to be aware the goods were stolen. — Benkei

It could be that the Dutch, like Bartricks, are wrong. It sounds like the old legal principle "finders keepers, losers weepers" that we use in America on the kindergarten playground. I wonder what, if anything, the Dutch do to make the victim whole? Maybe it's a hold-over from Dutch Colonialism? Not sure.

And legality and ethics aren't as related as you make it out to be. Laws are about economics more than about ethics. — Benkei

I didn't say anything about law and ethics. I was talking about law and philosophy. I also specifically referenced the messy and dumber process of making laws (statutory), where economics play a larger role. That is one reason we have common law, where judges can act in equity. I also specifically stated that none of this was perfect. Money can buy judges. Some judges are stupid. Some are rapists and drunks. I was talking about the likes of Learned Hand and others. Still not perfect, but thinkers nonetheless.

Sometimes it is good to put yourself in the shoes of the victim instead of the beneficiary of wrongful acts. Those who have benefited and don't want to be grateful and graceful and compensatory like to put them self in the position of what they believe is an innocent third party purchaser for value. That's part of the open conspiracy, where we want to clean the slate and start over with what he have as the baseline. Completely ignoring how we got it.

And I engaged in some of that philosophical reflection, did I not, in the OP - and then you ignored it. — Bartricks

I didn't ignore your post. I disagreed with it. You didn't like that. Just because your moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean I ignored them when I disagreed with them.

Do you have anything philosophical to contribute? — Bartricks

You'd be surprised at how much the law (both statutory and common) has found it's moral underpinnings in thousands of years of philosophy. You wouldn't believe how all the various degrees and elements of crimes, mens rea, etc. and civil considerations regarding damages, etc. are really just legal efforts to address the nuances of individual cases that have arisen repeatedly over the course of time. Attorney's, representing both sides (some of them brilliant philosophers), and judges (same) after deep philosophical consideration, came up with what we call "precedent." Then there is statutory law that came about through a messier, dumber, but nonetheless, judicially reviewed process.

Perfect? NO. But I was making philosophical contributions. You just didn't agree with them. I suspect that you don't like the fact that you can't reset and clean a slate as long as you didn't know. Even though justice places the burden upon you to know. You would like to forget the original victim and "tough shit to him." You would like to be able to launder the goods by ignorance. But that is not how the law works, at least before the SOL.

Bartricks work in a bar, but not before the bar.

es, excellent point - what the law says is automatically right. We do not need to discuss the ethics of any particular laws. Good point. You're good. Lawyers are the real moral philosophers. Why don't moral philosophers realize this? Really good point. — Bartricks

Buyer beware. :smile:

And the law in this case gets it right, and you wrong. I steal your stuff and give it to my cousin Fred to sell. Fred is clueless; he's acting in good faith. But he's in possession. his problem. And your problem. And if not, we'll just steal your stuff and you'll be basically helpless. But the law figured all that out a very long time ago. So your intuition and reasoning is at about a sixth or seventh grade level: pre-teen, childish. — tim wood

:100:

Subject to correction by the lawyer posting, it seems to me that property rights cannot be alienated by an illegal transaction against the property owner - one reason title searching is always done in real estate transactions and car titles are a big deal. As to (other) chattel, if stolen, the one in possession is either the thief, or in possession of stolen goods.

If the one in possession acted in good faith, that merely saves him or her from prosecution, but establishes no right whatsoever. Nor can any right be attached when no original right exists. — tim wood

:up:

Thus if stolen paint is brushed onto a canvas creating a masterpiece, that paint and its added value go to the original owner. — tim wood

I think the original owner is entitled to the value of the paint, and interest, but not the value of the painting. If the painter is the thief, he could be liable for punitive damages that are more than the value of the paint plus interest. If they painter is an innocent purchaser for value, he'd just owe for the paint plus interest and could keep the enhanced value after sale.

There are exceptions to the general rule when the original victim had specific and known plans, and accrued known losses (like a particular investment that would have earned more than statutory interest). It's been a long time, but you are right about the general principle and Bartricks is wrong, at least by law.

But a question remains as to responsibility for lost value. In good faith I acquire a car that's stolen. It's wrecked in an accident, me driving. Do I owe the original owner anything? And under criminal or civil law? And it seems to me I owe. Somewhere along the line of the chain of possession was an act of commission or omission. I may have civil recourse back along that line, but it seems to me the original owner has a claim against all parties.

And I'm sure there's a tenet at law to cover this: no one can profit from wrong acts. — tim wood

:100:

Well, I was well and truly bored by the time I got to the point where you told me how bored you were. — Bartricks

Yeah, the law is like that. Notwithstanding the fact it is based upon that lively and exciting field of philosophy.

But anyway, you didn't address anything I argued, — Bartricks

Actually, I did. But like a loser in a court case, you didn't like what you heard. :lol:

you just stated something counterintuitive, namely that Rodney owes you the value of the pizza he consumed plus interest — Bartricks

Funny you should call the law counterintuitive on that one. :smirk:

Again, you'll need to do better than that if you want followers. — Bartricks

Don't follow me. Follow the law. Or don't. Your call.

no, Rodney does not owe you any money. — Bartricks

Rodney owes me the value of the slice, plus the statutory rate of interest that I could have earned had it not been stolen, had I sold it and invested the money. Rodney has to seek relief, if any from you or your estate. You can't sell what you don't own so the transaction between you and Rodney is void. It's up to you to obtain legal title, even if there is no paper. It's a legal fiction but the burden is on Rod.

if Rodney had incorporated the pizza into an art work - he has, say, covered it in gold and put it on a stand. Does Rodney owe you that work of art? — Bartricks

No. He owes the value of the slice plus interest.

I got bored reading the rest. We have courts of law. We determine value of the slice in court. We have statutory rates of interest that we use to determine "increase." Not enhancement that could have been, but normal increase due to investment.

Just remember, interest compounds up, but also down. If your grandfather steels my grandfather's labor and you go to Harvard Law school because of it, while I join a gang, do meth and spiral down, then we have statutes of limitations (SOL), or "shit out of luck" that protects you and your grandfather. It's called "white privilege." But society may (should) feel a moral obligation to make me whole. But it doesn't. There is an open conspiracy to look the other way. The privileged like to wipe the slate clean and not punish the sons for the sins of the father. That's why morality says "We are not punishing you. We are just relieving you of some of the benefits that you enjoy, the privilege that you are not entitled to, as an entitled little shit."

Compare: People get old and die and generations move on. But nations live on unless and until exterminated. The U.S. is and has been "alive" since 1776. Virtually ALL of the Indian tribes that we treated with are likewise still extant. Our own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Indian aren't entitled to mere money at law for the increase, but they are entitled to specific performance in equity. In other words, for one example, the Lakota are entitled to the Black Hills and environs, as well as money damages. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has only awarded money which they have rejected. Give them the land. Or be dishonorable. Our choice, because, whether might makes right or not, it is the way things are. The U.S. is dishonorable.

One of the first pieces of legislation in the United States was the Tariff Act. — NOS4A2

Start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

As far as I can tell, never once has industry wanted laissez-faire, anyways. At best they wanted protectionism, at worst they wanted hand-outs and monopoly, but in each case they ran to the State for all of it. — NOS4A2

:100: They took over the state some time ago, and here we are.

We are directly above the center of Earth, and we are in the now. That is All. We can pretend to be otherwise, which is merely a part of All perceiving itself. It's nice to know that we are merely. But it would also be nice to quit pretending. I think that happens after we've been dead for a while. We must wait. Or must we? I've heard some have figured out how to consistently be here now. Me, not so much.

Carry on.

Sometimes I use "natural" to distinguish between us and everything but us. At the end of the day, however, it's all natural. Maybe someday nature will pound this square peg that is us into the round hole that is everything else. But it's still all Her pegs and holes.

But clearly he started out unethical, self serving, probably cruel. Is that a contradiction to being wise? — TiredThinker

It is not unwise to start out unethical, self serving, probably cruel. It might be unethical to stay that way. To answer that, we have to get into "what is unethical, self serving, and probably cruel."

About bloody time. Deserves jail. — Wayfarer

I'll believe it when I see it. And if it's a country club, forget that. I'd like to see the distinction lost to the history books. He needs a big (if you know what I mean) cell mate. All of them do.

It is irrefutable that only a consciousness brings the wave function to collapse. — SolarWind

How's about we bring a Raven into it? What does he/she say?

Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. — ssu

I agree. I just think the laws that make that legal were not passed by government. They were passed by people who were lobbied and bought by people who have the money to pay for it.

My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. — ssu

:100: Eliminate the loopholes. As to the rate, I hold my counsel and reserve that decision to people who have not been bought. Then I woke up.

It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments. If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars only when you sell the stock. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed, you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?

It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. — ssu

When you can roll it over in a 1301 exchange, or leave it to your heirs (who didn't do shit to earn it) or take advantage of expensing every thing you do, from food to housing to the cat that catches the mice, then you essentially expense all of it, live like a king and don't pay shit. That's not logical. Even Roth contributions are capped for normal people. And if you try to withdraw, you get fucked way more than a millionaire selling some stock. Some of these people actually pursue losses and still live like kings. And if they move it over seas, it can be placed beyond the IRS. Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on.

I would prefer to defend myself or pay for a service that defends my rights and property, — NOS4A2

Against a foreign state invader? Against a cartel? Against an organized crime family? What happens when the service you pay for is, or becomes one of those entities?

What are you grateful for when it comes to government? — NOS4A2

Every single thing I have, except for Mother Nature. Even then, some of her has been protected for me, from the libertarians, so that I can still enjoy what's left of her. But yeah, the thin blue line, the thin green line, the highways, the rights of way over which you and I now communicate, the fire department, the subsidized health care, jeesh. I could go on and on. But if you are suggesting I should count my blessing, you are spot the fuck on. I should. More than I do.

Re: billionaires and taxes. If money is not earned, through hard and/or smart work, and is simply the result of markets (i.e. on paper), and where the law has been manipulated by the rich to only count as income that which has been cashed out, then what is really happening is what the right like to say: "I don't work for my money; my money works for me." I don't have a problem with that. However, why is their money not paying taxes like all other workers? Withholding for SS, medicare, unemployment, income (state and federal), etc.? Can the money unionize? Go on strike against the billionaires and seek better working conditions? Make it's own investments? Vote? Etc. All independent of the asshole it works for? Just curious. Or is the money simply a slave?

He lives off borrowed money. — NOS4A2

Cool. What a guy.

I would no longer expect anything in return. — NOS4A2

How would you protect what little you have from the thieves (non-governmental :roll: ) that would take it from you?

I have to content myself with whatever morsels the state will offer me, which turns out to be very little. — NOS4A2

Just some unsolicited advice: Sit down with a pen and paper sometime and write down all you have to be thankful for.

I won't suggest that you honestly evaluate how much of that was brought to you by, or protected by your fellow man, acting by and through government. That would be too big an ask. You can believe that all that would come to you in spite of, and not because of government.

Baby steps. Baby steps. Just start with what you are grateful for.

Maybe in 20 years the light bulb will go on.

If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would. — NOS4A2

I was going to ask "seriously" but then I caught myself because the word "seriously" has been so over used as to sound rhetorical, flip, facetious, or like a teen valley girl. But I can't think of another word. So, seriously?

I also want to ask why you can't walk out the door, and where you would go if you did? But that just leads to pivots and excuses and fantasy land.

So I'm left with the only serious question left, based in sincere intellectual curiosity: If you could somehow end this relationship, would you likewise forego all the state provides you in that to-be-abandoned relationship? Tell me about that, please. I might want to do that myself. It sounds interesting. Of course that would haul me back to the "why and where" question, but first things first.