FW: [Peace-discuss] Obama & Media Reform

[John W.]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

>  While that is the case that I have not studied contract law, I am
> interested in how contract law would prevent such a legal action from being
> brought.  I am willing to accept that practically speaking it would probably
> get nowhere and one would be hard pressed to find a lawyer or court willing
> to accept such a case.  My suspicions are that you are probably referring to
> the fact that verbal contracts have little effective standing in the courts
> in contrast to written contracts, that the candidates never formally signed,
> affirmed, or confirmed a contractual agreement, and that there was no direct
> and explicit quid pro quo involved in which both parties got something of
> value in the contractual transaction (otherwise it would be buying votes
> which is illegal).
>
All of the above.  Plus a contract, verbal or written, requires a specific
"meeting of the minds" between two or more identifiable parties (not
political parties, but parties to the contract).  If a political candidate
makes a campaign "promise", who would be the other contracting party, and
how would you determine that there had been a meeting of the minds?

That's why you'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer or court willing to accept
such a case.  Politics simply doesn't lend itself to the principles of
contract law.

Another interesting legal theory, which also wouldn't fly, would be
"political malpractice".  Have you ever wondered why there is provision in
our law for medical malpractice but not for "educational malpractice"?

John



>  *From:* John W. [mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:56 AM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> *Subject:* Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Obama & Media Reform
>
>
>
> 2008/11/11 LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>
>
> On this and other campaign promises, I think it would be interesting if
> members of the public would bring class action legal actions against elected
> officials for breach of contract when they break their campaign promises;
> after all these promises are a form of verbal – if not written – contracts.
>
>
> Plainly you haven't studied contract law.
>
>
>
>  If we are to be moralists about things, then I would say it is immoral
> for anyone to allow a candidate to make promises for expediency sake which
> they oppose and then if the candidate wins ask the candidate to breach
> his/her contract or repudiate his/her campaign promises. Or a moralist, it
> is tantamount to encouraging and promoting lying and calling such lies white
> lies when they served one's own purposes and serious lies when they were not
> in service of one's purposes.  It would then be hypocritical to want and
> expect one's officials to be honest and up front.
>
> If we were to be power politics realists, then morality and honesty would
> play no part in our assessments; it would be sheer power politics and
> expediency.  We have already made a sham of party platforms and campaign
> promises to a great extent; now are we promoting dishonesty, deliberate
> deceit, and fraudulent misdirection?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081112/c2aee84c/attachment.html