quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But there is another problem RO - if we assume consequential loss to be the way to deal with unwanted pregnancy, having already made a leap in seeking to apply contract law, then how do we deal with that?
- the contract was fulfilled, each side got and gave as agreed and there is no breach - perhaps just a bad bargain
- which party is at fault, notwithstanding there was no breach?
- even with the widest interpretation of third party rights, it would be difficult to argue the resulting fetus to be such a third party
Its not consequential loss that I have been talking about it consequential liability.

No different than if 2 kids are playing ball and it sails with through an 8foot by 4 foot lead stained glass.

It was not part of the contract but none the less falls onto the parents even though the kids fulfilled the ball game contract.
the only reason the fetus cannot be a third party is no voce as they are incapable in testifying in court.
And even before that, if we assume there is a contract and one party backs out prior to fulfilment so providing for a breach to have come about, what remedy is available?
- there is no monetary amount lost
- no court is going to make an order requiring specific performance

And this even if we override the other factors whereby no contract comes about in law by two people agreeing to have sex.

What I'm trying to say is that contract law isnt suitable, let alone applicable, as a means of dealing with any of this from the initial "lets have sex" through to the possible consequences of having sex. There is no contract and so there can be no breach and no remedy, and even if we assume the contrary at each of those stages the remaining difficulties in themselves prejudice any useful or just solution to the situation.

I can see your point that a personal relationship may bind two people together in that they each affect the other and have shared interest in the consequences of their interactions, but to say that this produces a contractual relationship is to go too far into legalising personal relationships that apart from potentially overloading the courts with vexatious litigation would also likely be contrary to our human rights laws and your constitutional rights.

well then lets get the peoples courts back if corps "dont have the time".


if 2 parties contract to have sex and one backs out sure they could sue but for what?  maybe the the price of a cheap hooker. but you see you are drifting from the issue here.

The issue is really pregancy and the obligations therein.

There are many real world examples how this could be handled between 2 people when there is a child one wants the other does not on the bargaining table which would be just to all parties.

Personal relationships are just that, controlled only by conscience, morality and reputation, in bringing people together towards the enjoyment or achievement of shared interests. It must be for the conscience, morality and reputation of those involved in an unwanted outcome to their interaction in a personal relationship, to deal with that situation. The message then is to be careful in picking your friends and especially to be careful in picking your lovers.

E

quote:

Two things make an abortion necessary (1) The female is pregnant; (2) she doesn't want to be pregnant.