[Draft] Ban On Abusive Contracts

[Old Hope]

The World Assembly,

Wishing to protect people from morally indefensible, abusive contracts,

Wishing to protect the public from harm that would result from the legality of these contracts,

Noting that contracts often involve multiple nations,

Determining that this is an issue of international importance,

Defining an abusive contract, for the purposes of this resolution, as a contract meeting one or more of the following criteria:
1.A party to the contract agreed to it due to being subject to the use of illegal methods,
2.An action to be performed due to this contract violates the law in any nation it is to be performed in and no party of the contract is a government in a state of war,
3.A contract between a government in a state of war and another party or parties that violates the law of the state the government belongs to,
4.A party of the contract abused its position as a provider of essential goods, such as food, water, and any other service that a person who is party of this contract needs to fulfill their basic needs by asking for compensation of more than 150% of its normal market value,
5. A party to the contract entered into the contract knowing that another party could not fulfill its obligations,

Mandates member state to implement the following, according to the definition of an abusive contract in this resolution:

Abusive contracts are null and void.

A party to a contract that abused its position as a provider of essential goods or subjected a party to the use of illegal methods to make that party agree to that contract forfeits all rights to compensation or return for already performed services, provided goods or payments due to them treating that contract as a non-abusive contract,

A party to a contract that willfully prevents another party to the contract from fulfilling its obligations must fulfill these obligations themselves instead of that party, and is fully responsible for a failure to fulfill these obligations.

Social Justice, Strong?

I need some feedback on the category. Other feedback is welcome, too.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If I understand that correctly, you're basically saying that illegal contracts are illegal? Isn't that a given?

[Old Hope]

OOC: If I understand that correctly, you're basically saying that illegal contracts are illegal? Isn't that a given?

OOC: No. I am saying that contracts that SHOULD be illegal are illegal. For examine, a contract between a person in member state A and a person in member state B that is illegal in member state B but not member state A is enforceable in member state A.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: If I understand that correctly, you're basically saying that illegal contracts are illegal? Isn't that a given?

OOC: No. I am saying that contracts that SHOULD be illegal are illegal. For examine, a contract between a person in member state A and a person in member state B that is illegal in member state B but not member state A is enforceable in member state A.

Ooc: at which point good luck enforcing it in state B. Contract enforcability is already effectively solved by jurisdictional limits on enforcement. An essential part of contract enforcement is that contracts must be legal to receive state enforcement. All this does is restate the baseline state of affairs and then justify unjust enrichment. But for the UE clauses, this wouldn't even justify Mild.

[Old Hope]

OOC: No. I am saying that contracts that SHOULD be illegal are illegal. For examine, a contract between a person in member state A and a person in member state B that is illegal in member state B but not member state A is enforceable in member state A.

Ooc: at which point good luck enforcing it in state B. Contract enforcability is already effectively solved by jurisdictional limits on enforcement. An essential part of contract enforcement is that contracts must be legal to receive state enforcement. All this does is restate the baseline state of affairs and then justify unjust enrichment. But for the UE clauses, this wouldn't even justify Mild.

Justify unjust enrichment? Could you please tell us what do you even mean? What you are saying is how it should be. Not how it is. Do you seriously want to argue that every single member state already enforces all of these clauses? Really?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: at which point good luck enforcing it in state B. Contract enforcability is already effectively solved by jurisdictional limits on enforcement. An essential part of contract enforcement is that contracts must be legal to receive state enforcement. All this does is restate the baseline state of affairs and then justify unjust enrichment. But for the UE clauses, this wouldn't even justify Mild.

Justify unjust enrichment? Could you please tell us what do you even mean? What you are saying is how it should be. Not how it is. Do you seriously want to argue that every single member state already enforces all of these clauses? Really?

Ooc: i do want to argue that all member states will not enforce contracts that violate their laws. Most people would see the absurdity of expecting states to use state power to undermine state rules, and any government sophisticated enough to enforce contracts is more that sophisticated enough to manage this. And have.

As for the quantum meruit issue, I think we have another scenario where you don't know quite as much on a topic as you need to in order to draft effectively, and it will hamstring your progress.

[Old Hope]

Justify unjust enrichment? Could you please tell us what do you even mean? What you are saying is how it should be. Not how it is. Do you seriously want to argue that every single member state already enforces all of these clauses? Really?

Ooc: i do want to argue that all member states will not enforce contracts that violate their laws. Most people would see the absurdity of expecting states to use state power to undermine state rules, and any government sophisticated enough to enforce contracts is more that sophisticated enough to manage this. And have.

As for the quantum meruit issue, I think we have another scenario where you don't know quite as much on a topic as you need to in order to draft effectively, and it will hamstring your progress.

OOC: Not all governments always act in good faith. They might enforce contracts that only violate the law of another, affected country. Your arguments against this resolution are unusually weak. The argument for unjust enrichment is also very weak because the disadvantaged party acted in bad faith and with the legal knowledge of the consequences.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Not all governments always act in good faith. They might enforce contracts that only violate the law of another, affected country. Your arguments against this resolution are unusually weak. The argument for unjust enrichment is also very weak because the disadvantaged party acted in bad faith and with the legal knowledge of the consequences.

Ooc: no, i think you just struggle with the source material. Even a nation acting in bad faith has a strong, perhaps stronger, incentive to not enforce a violation of its own law because it fundamentally undermines the very mechanism through which the state enforces thst contract: the courts. Once courts operate against their own laws, judicial remedies are no longer reliable means to resolve conflict and people resort to self help. This is incredibly basic legal theory.

Your counterpoint reverses the scenario: that states would not violate their own law to enforce a contract. Theres no issue with a state enforcing a contract that violates foreign law to the enforcing state. Index, that happens constantly IRL without issue. That the state in question is enforcing the contract in the first place demonstrates that they have jurisdiction over the matter, and that foreign law is no longer at issue. The only time this may actually kick in is under a choice of law clause, and even there, the state has already applied its own law in the first instance.

Your position isn't even bad policy. It just ignores the fundemental logic of jurisdiction and the state's self-interest. Calling my argument weak when you cant hammer down how jurisdiction works is like calling a doctor's diagnosis weak for not considering magical maladies.

[Old Hope]

OOC: Not all governments always act in good faith. They might enforce contracts that only violate the law of another, affected country. Your arguments against this resolution are unusually weak. The argument for unjust enrichment is also very weak because the disadvantaged party acted in bad faith and with the legal knowledge of the consequences.

Ooc: no, i think you just struggle with the source material. Even a nation acting in bad faith has a strong, perhaps stronger, incentive to not enforce a violation of its own law because it fundamentally undermines the very mechanism through which the state enforces thst contract: the courts. Once courts operate against their own laws, judicial remedies are no longer reliable means to resolve conflict and people resort to self help. This is incredibly basic legal theory.

Your counterpoint reverses the scenario: that states would not violate their own law to enforce a contract. Theres no issue with a state enforcing a contract that violates foreign law to the enforcing state. Index, that happens constantly IRL without issue. That the state in question is enforcing the contract in the first place demonstrates that they have jurisdiction over the matter, and that foreign law is no longer at issue. The only time this may actually kick in is under a choice of law clause, and even there, the state has already applied its own law in the first instance.

Your position isn't even bad policy. It just ignores the fundemental logic of jurisdiction and the state's self-interest. Calling my argument weak when you cant hammer down how jurisdiction works is like calling a doctor's diagnosis weak for not considering magical maladies.

Not enforcing a contract that violates foreign law (as long as the violation is performed IN that foreign state) reduces legal protection for both parties. But this could be put down in a different resolution, actually.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: no, i think you just struggle with the source material. Even a nation acting in bad faith has a strong, perhaps stronger, incentive to not enforce a violation of its own law because it fundamentally undermines the very mechanism through which the state enforces thst contract: the courts. Once courts operate against their own laws, judicial remedies are no longer reliable means to resolve conflict and people resort to self help. This is incredibly basic legal theory.

Your counterpoint reverses the scenario: that states would not violate their own law to enforce a contract. Theres no issue with a state enforcing a contract that violates foreign law to the enforcing state. Index, that happens constantly IRL without issue. That the state in question is enforcing the contract in the first place demonstrates that they have jurisdiction over the matter, and that foreign law is no longer at issue. The only time this may actually kick in is under a choice of law clause, and even there, the state has already applied its own law in the first instance.

Your position isn't even bad policy. It just ignores the fundemental logic of jurisdiction and the state's self-interest. Calling my argument weak when you cant hammer down how jurisdiction works is like calling a doctor's diagnosis weak for not considering magical maladies.

Not enforcing a contract that violates foreign law (as long as the violation is performed IN that foreign state) reduces legal protection for both parties. But this could be put down in a different resolution, actually.

Ooc: still, as usual, incorrect. Failure to enforce may increase protections if breach includes punitive clauses that disincentivize contractual freedoms.

Moreover, the jurisdiction in which the breach occurs is rarely dispositive. Where it is relevant, it is usually one of many factors to assess jurisdiction. Place of formation and performance is broadly more relevant. Again, I think you may lack the subject expertise to do this justice.

[Old Hope]

Ooc: still, as usual, incorrect. Failure to enforce may increase protections if breach includes punitive clauses that disincentivize contractual freedoms.

Moreover, the jurisdiction in which the breach occurs is rarely dispositive. Where it is relevant, it is usually one of many factors to assess jurisdiction. Place of formation and performance is broadly more relevant. Again, I think you may lack the subject expertise to do this justice.

But NONE of the clauses is enforceable, not even punitive clauses.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: still, as usual, incorrect. Failure to enforce may increase protections if breach includes punitive clauses that disincentivize contractual freedoms.

Moreover, the jurisdiction in which the breach occurs is rarely dispositive. Where it is relevant, it is usually one of many factors to assess jurisdiction. Place of formation and performance is broadly more relevant. Again, I think you may lack the subject expertise to do this justice.

But NONE of the clauses is enforceable, not even punitive clauses.

Ooc: are* enforceable, for one.

For another, I'm not arguing whether clauses governing jurisdiction or breach are enforceable in that post. I am pointing out another nuance of contract law you don't understand to demonstrate that you almost certainly do not know enough about this subject to effectively draft on it. Context is your friend.

As it relates to the Category and Strength, however, (and do note that this counts as a contextual break) their lack of enforceability does not increase legal protections per se, since action can still be taken in a foreign jurisdictions to various effect. Depending on the foreign state's 'long arm' jurisdiction and various factual considerations, that may be marginal at best. Too marginal for the Strength/Category, as it involves considerable speculation. But thats just my reading.

[Wealthatonia]

Ambassador, if you look closely at your contract you signed in Wealthatonia, you would find that you signed an NDA, and this counts as violating it.

All kidding aside, consent was given to the contract and it shouldn't matter if one didn't read it, they agreed to it

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador, if you look closely at your contract you signed in Wealthatonia, you would find that you signed an NDA, and this counts as violating it.

All kidding aside, consent was given to the contract and it shouldn't matter if one didn't read it, they agreed to it

Bell frowns in confusion. "Fascinating, ambassador, that as aggressively pro-capitalist a nation as yours would put such a dangerous obstacle in the way of contract enforcement. It would strike me that using a signature as conclusive, rather than presumptive, evidence of assent to a bargain invites a great deal of deliberate manipulation among providers of routine services. After all, even prudent and reasonable people do not read every contract they encounter in full, even if they encounter only written ones. End User License Agreements in electronics and software come to mind, not to mention the Terms and Conditions of any internet or media service. A system that disregarded reality so aggressively would incentivize businesses using underhanded alterations in the routine course to trick the contracting parties into breach for insubstantial lapses. This would, of course, increase the risk of contracting, throw up costly barriers to free contracting, and disincentivize the kind of routine business that makes a company thrive. Not to mention jam your courts up for Odin only knows how long."

The Separatist clears his throat and takes a sip from his glass. "That is, at least, my take on it. Perhaps sometime you could elaborate on the nuance of Wealthatonian contract law and how it does not collapse your private sector."

[Wealthatonia]

Ambassador, if you look closely at your contract you signed in Wealthatonia, you would find that you signed an NDA, and this counts as violating it.

All kidding aside, consent was given to the contract and it shouldn't matter if one didn't read it, they agreed to it

Bell frowns in confusion. "Fascinating, ambassador, that as aggressively pro-capitalist a nation as yours would put such a dangerous obstacle in the way of contract enforcement. It would strike me that using a signature as conclusive, rather than presumptive, evidence of assent to a bargain invites a great deal of deliberate manipulation among providers of routine services. After all, even prudent and reasonable people do not read every contract they encounter in full, even if they encounter only written ones. End User License Agreements in electronics and software come to mind, not to mention the Terms and Conditions of any internet or media service. A system that disregarded reality so aggressively would incentivize businesses using underhanded alterations in the routine course to trick the contracting parties into breach for insubstantial lapses. This would, of course, increase the risk of contracting, throw up costly barriers to free contracting, and disincentivize the kind of routine business that makes a company thrive. Not to mention jam your courts up for Odin only knows how long."

The Separatist clears his throat and takes a sip from his glass. "That is, at least, my take on it. Perhaps sometime you could elaborate on the nuance of Wealthatonian contract law and how it does not collapse your private sector."

(OOC, I don't know enough about Contract law and how it works, so i'm just going to roll this back)