Oh for goodness sake, I'm no fan of Queleshian Ambassador either, but there's no need to be that petty.
Advertisement
by Wisconsin9 » Tue May 29, 2012 6:23 pm
by Free South Califas » Tue May 29, 2012 7:20 pm
by Quelesh » Tue May 29, 2012 8:09 pm
by Wisconsin9 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:21 pm
by Cowardly Pacifists » Tue May 29, 2012 9:51 pm
Wisconsin9 wrote:Like I said in my previous post, I also just don't like this proposal.
by Wisconsin9 » Tue May 29, 2012 9:58 pm
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Wisconsin9 wrote:Like I said in my previous post, I also just don't like this proposal.
Great. One less ambassador to try to appease.
I thought the proposal needed an additional international dimension, so I borrowed a play from CD's upcoming proposal and included a new provision 5 in the current draft. Thoughts?
by Cowardly Pacifists » Tue May 29, 2012 10:09 pm
Wisconsin9 wrote:*sigh* If you allowed nations to flat out ban contracts, I'd approve… wait, why is this necessary at all?
by Goobergunchia » Tue May 29, 2012 11:55 pm
by Free South Califas » Wed May 30, 2012 2:24 am
Wisconsin9 wrote:Free South Califas wrote:
And do you intend to sacrifice all principles on the altar of your personal vendetta, or should we consider you to be participating in WA legislation with some minuscule measure of good faith?
Like I said in my previous post, I also just don't like this proposal.
by Ainocra » Wed May 30, 2012 3:07 am
by Wisconsin9 » Wed May 30, 2012 5:21 am
by Morlago » Wed May 30, 2012 9:04 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 30, 2012 10:24 am
Goobergunchia wrote:Our greatest concern on the merits of clauses 2 and 3 involves positions in which an individual may be at a disadvantage in negotiating contractual terms. We do not believe the freedom of contract should override important public policy concerns like minimum wage laws, occupational safety laws, and the ability to use the courts to gain redress for breach of contract. We do feel that these public policy concerns could be subsumed into the "compelling interest" provisions of clause 3, but at the same time we feel that the breadth of such language could be used to swallow clause 2 entirely -- thus making the two clauses essentially irrelevant.
Ainocra wrote:clause 5 could be abused to prevent the nation from ruling in breach of contract cases.
Also I still see no need for this, you are well intentioned but micromanaging local businesses is frankly not in the best interest of this body. You also seem to be trying to affirm business as a right, which it is not.
by Ainocra » Wed May 30, 2012 10:42 am
by Sanctaria » Wed May 30, 2012 10:56 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 30, 2012 11:17 am
Ainocra wrote:Making contracts is a part of business, you do not have the right to make them, you must acquire a business license in order to do business. The nation of Ainocra in particular is built on a social contract which stipulates many of the ways people must act.
It is not, nor should it be an inherent right. some societies only allow contract to be made between certain people, marriage contracts for example. some societies are caste driven, some are not, some view any type type of law as heretical.
My point is
This is not only too broad, but it is unnecessary. This is not an international issue and the cookie cutter approach simply will not work.
There are too many disparate societies and types of government for this to actually be workable.
Ainocra wrote:As for a specific example on clause 5
you and I go into partnership to export weapons from Ainocra to you.
We draw up a contract and sign it and then you at some point break that contract.
according to that clause my government can't rule the contract in violation unless you agree.
so naturally you disagree, and legally I have to keep sending you the weapons even though you aren't paying for them or else I would be in breach of contract.
see the problem here
"Unless all parties agree"
Ainocra wrote:Now that having been said, this is still frankly a non starter. It would cause massive disruption in the international economy and has the potential for abuse.
Therefore we are still opposed.
Sanctaria wrote:Being honest, I'm not completely convinced one has a right to make a contract. I believe that the freedom to do so should exist, but insofar as there being an inherent right to do so ... I don't think I accept that.
by Knootoss » Wed May 30, 2012 11:29 am
by Sanctaria » Wed May 30, 2012 11:36 am
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Sanctaria wrote:Being honest, I'm not completely convinced one has a right to make a contract. I believe that the freedom to do so should exist, but insofar as there being an inherent right to do so ... I don't think I accept that.
What's the difference? Practically speaking - at least in this context - a "right" is just a "freedom" that the government recognizes to exist.
Moreover, the proposal is written in terms of what one is free to do, not what one has a right to do. It's an elementary distinction, to be sure, but there you have it.
by The Altani Confederacy » Wed May 30, 2012 11:39 am
by Merfurian » Wed May 30, 2012 12:02 pm
2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted to enter into binding contracts within that nation;
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 30, 2012 12:29 pm
Sanctaria wrote:Cowardly Pacifists wrote:What's the difference? Practically speaking - at least in this context - a "right" is just a "freedom" that the government recognizes to exist.
Moreover, the proposal is written in terms of what one is free to do, not what one has a right to do. It's an elementary distinction, to be sure, but there you have it.
Untrue. In the proposal text you frequently switch between "freedom" to make a contract to "right" to make a contract.
Merfurian wrote:Clause 2 is a slight problem. Sometimes, when one buys goods or services, they are not actually supplied by a company/individual based in the purchaser's nation. At other times, the seller may be based in the purchaser's nation, but the company from whom the goods or services are being purchased are headquartered in a foreign country. I think these are international contracts. Clause 2 - from my reading:2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted to enter into binding contracts within that nation;
only permits contracts within a nation. It doesn't work when an international contract is - by the nature of the goods and services being bought - necessary. Would the author kindly address such issues? Perhaps he could rewrite the last part and say:
"shall be permitted to enter into binding contracts with either national or international persons or companies". I think that would fit nicely.
Bear in mind though that contract law was never my specialism at university, so I'm just guessing
2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted to enter into binding contracts;
Knootoss wrote:What is this proposals' secret agenda? I find myself in support and am confused.
by Sanctaria » Wed May 30, 2012 12:33 pm
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Sanctaria wrote:Untrue. In the proposal text you frequently switch between "freedom" to make a contract to "right" to make a contract.
Untrue. The word "right" occurs all of three times in my proposal, all in the preamble, twice referring to the "right of liberty," and once referring to the right "to freely form contracts." The rest of the proposal (i.e. every operative clause) refers to what a person is free (i.e. is "permitted") to do.
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:And in any case, I still don't understand your distinction. In this context, the "right to contract" and the "freedom to contract" are the same animal. They might rightly be combined into "the right of freedom to contract."
by Ainocra » Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 30, 2012 2:54 pm
Sanctaria wrote:Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Untrue. The word "right" occurs all of three times in my proposal, all in the preamble, twice referring to the "right of liberty," and once referring to the right "to freely form contracts." The rest of the proposal (i.e. every operative clause) refers to what a person is free (i.e. is "permitted") to do.
And what part of the right to freely form contracts do you not see as a right to form a contract? Which I have a problem with. And last time I checked, the preamble was a part of a proposal. So no, not untrue. True.
Sanctaria wrote:Cowardly Pacifists wrote:And in any case, I still don't understand your distinction. In this context, the "right to contract" and the "freedom to contract" are the same animal. They might rightly be combined into "the right of freedom to contract."
No one has an unalienable right to form a contract. Eat, shelther etc, yes. A contract, no. They can have the freedom to do so.
Ainocra wrote:Say we signed the contract in cowardly pacifists, then where would I be? I, and my facilities are in Ainocra so I would still have to ship to you, also what if we signed it in international waters/space? What if we signed it in Unibot? would Eduard come out of his scotch fueled haze to enforce it for either of us?
what if we signed one here on the floor of the WA where no nation's law holds sway?
My nation agreed to supply the evil skull over there with his fill of cigars, but he doesn't wanna pay. He said something about not having hands to sign it. All in all there are still in my view too many variables between the various economic systems to make this truly workable at present. (and me no likey
Then there is the lawyers, how many business around the multiverse would use this to avoid paying for goods and services?
Of course, you could always simplify it by adding another committee something like the International Contract Judgment Committee for Overseeing Useless Internationally Redundant Contracts. (perhaps a longer name, I don't think that one quite captures the right essence. )
Now that i've needlessly complicated your day, lets go have some scotch at the bar next door.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement