Jump to content

Brain AKA Jockboy4you2

LovesYng

By LovesYng
in The Deli

This topic is 6980 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Zippy Newbie

Zippy

Posted
Posted

No, actually escorting is perfectly legal. And, a "contract" between an escort and a client which is based on time for money is perfectly legally binding in any court of law. That's precisely why there isn't any other type of contract between an escort and a client for anything other than time for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
taylorky Enthusiast

taylorky

Posted
Posted

jeeeshhh give it a rest bud, we both know how the word "contract" is being used in this exchange,and we both know the "contract" is (with the exception of those who have a need to pay someone for reasons known only to themselves, $300.00 or more to accompany them to dinner,theatre,whatever) for sweaty monkey sex!

 

so what say we not muddy the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zippy Newbie

Zippy

Posted
Posted

Well, the subject at hand was that some people are trying to say that Brian doesn't do his "job" and therefore shouldn't be hired. I am saying that he most certainly is doing his "job", or rather filling the terms of the "contract", by agreeing to spend a specific amount of time with a client. If the client is asking him to go above and beyond the scope of the normal meeting between an escort and a client, then I say Brian has every right to refuse to do so. And, if the client then refuses to pay, then he is the one in breach of the contract.

 

No muddy waters here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joel304 Enthusiast

joel304

Posted
Posted

>Offer

Acceptance

Consideration<

 

There are always exceptions to the rule. Haven't they taught you that at Tulane Law yet?

 

For example, promises that are purely gifts are not considered enforceable because the personal satisfaction the grantor of the promise may receive from the act of giving is normally not considered adequate consideration. Certain promises that are not considered contracts may, in limited circumstances, be enforced if one party has relied to his detriment on the assurances of the other party.

 

Bill to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joel304 Enthusiast

joel304

Posted
Posted

>Reliance functions as consideration in your scenario.<

 

Reliance serves as an alternative to consideration.

 

Or perhaps promissory estoppel:

 

Three elements must exist in order to invoke promissory estoppel:

 

1) Was there a promise which the promisor reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance? (foreseeability)

2) Did the promise actually induce such action or forbearance? (reliance)

3) Can injustice be avoided only by enforcement of the promise? (injustice)

 

They give us so much free time to cut and paste in prison.

 

NYU, Class of ..... not tellin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Contact Info:

The Company of Men
5834 C. North Kings Hwy #4343
Alexandria, VA 22303

Email: moderators@companyofmen.org

Help Support Our Site

Our site operates with the support of our members. Make a one-time donation using the buttons below.

$10 $25 $50 $100 $200

Make a recurring donation

Additional Resources

×
×
  • Create New...