Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:23:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
639 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Richie Dulin wrote:
>
> > > > So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for
> > > > loss of my relationship 'property'?
> > >
> > > I would say yes...Of course there's also the consideration of
> > > the conditions under which the relationship "property" is given. • <snip>
> > > If the government's view of marriage
> > > is just a contract, then the wife withdrawing the relationship can be
> > > dealt with under contract law.
> >
> > I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the
> > 'relationship' a property. Surely a contract of marriage would be a property
> > in addition to the relationship. The wife withdrawing from a relationship
> > would therefore be under the termination provisions of the contract AND be
> > additionally liable for destruction of the husband/wife relationship.
>
> I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well,
> the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in
> the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself
> should, and usually does, have terms of redress clearly spelled out if one side
> should violate their end of the deal.
>
> The only thing I would change about Frank's verbiage is to declare that the
> property is not given, but mutually formed. The relationship property between
> two (or more?) people is a shared venture to which the participants have
> equal(?) ownership rights. If the contract specifies what happens when one
> member wishes to disolve the relationship, as it should, then there's no need
> for additional liability.
I would agree with this refinement. It also better supports the idea
that the wife terminating the relationship is different than a murderer
terminating the relationship.
> If you want to borrow money from me to begin a small business and I'm not
> satisfied with the business' assets as collateral, then I may require that you
> collateralize your home in addition. When your business fails, as most new
> businesses do, your home has no logical connection to our resolution of your
> business debt, but because we included it in the contract, I can foreclose on
> you. It's just like that with the "relationship property."
> > > The ex wife taking that relationship
> > > away is far different than a murderer taking it away (and an adulterator
> > > taking it away is somewhere in the middle).
> >
> > Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away?
>
> That's not what he meant. As you can see from my explanation above, the wife
> is an interested party in the relationship. What that grants her is flexible
> and ought to be specified in the contract, but surely it grants her something
> more than an outside party like the murderer.
Right, it's not so much that the value of the relationship diminishes
when the spouse breaks off the relationship as that the spouse having
join ownership can withdraw subject to the terms of the contract. The
murderer is (probably) not a party to the contract, and therefore can
not terminate the relationship without liability.
> I don't think the adulteress is
> any different from any other ex spouse. If the parties want her to be, then
> they need to specify that in the contract ahead of time.
What I was trying to get at with the adultery situation is that the
third party may have some liability for breaking up the relationship
(though most of the liability should lie with the cheating spouse).
> > Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away?
>
> Yes, absolutely. If the government (in the US) seizes your property without
> claiming you had drugs, then they must pay you about 1.5 times the FMV for that
> property (in my experience). If the bank seizes it because you didn't pay your
> bills, then your interest in the property is severely limited. If a stranger
> seizes your stuff, then you have every right to recapture it. The "value" to
> you is different in each of these scenarios.
Hmm, I'm not sure the value of the property is really changing here. In
the case of the bank foreclosing, the borrower doesn't have complete
ownership of the property. If you have a loan on a car, and it gets
totaled by someone else, you will sue them for the value of the car (of
course since this happens so often, you usually don't have to actually
sue - the insurance companies just settle it out). You are then still
liable to the lender for the loan (usually you pay off the loan since
you've got a hunk of cash [but perhaps not enough...], and you no longer
have the car that may be seized for non-payment - the loan contract of
course should fully specify how this type of situation is handled).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
