{"id":15434,"date":"2013-07-23T13:18:35","date_gmt":"2013-07-23T17:18:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=15434"},"modified":"2013-07-23T13:18:35","modified_gmt":"2013-07-23T17:18:35","slug":"chuck-klostermans-villainous-names-list-and-contract-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=15434","title":{"rendered":"Chuck Klosterman’s Villainous Names List and contract law"},"content":{"rendered":"

I picked up this thing about legal contracts from somewhere \u2014 don’t remember where \u2014 just at the point my cousin Naomi The Younger told me about Chuck Klosterman’s list of villainous names.<\/a><\/p>\n

“Naomi” is number 5.<\/p>\n

Naomi The Younger is amused; I am trying to be. But somehow I sort of want to approach Klosterman assertively … except I don’t know what I would tell him. About the four family Naomis all of whom have been terrific people? One thing: “Naomi” means sweetness. That could be one thing. Another is: wasn’t that monstrous doll in that series of horror movies named Chuckie?<\/p>\n

Never mind. Whoever Will Baude is, Sidebar<\/strong> thanks him for this critique of a Klosterman legal<\/em> error in a New York Times’ ethics column.\u00a0 (But, Will, gotta tell you \u2014 Klosterman is not awful, let alone “infamously awful.” He’s a good writer, warm and often funny.)<\/p>\n

Contracts 101 and \u201cEthicist\u201d Chuck Klosterman<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Posted: 21 Jul 2013 08:42 AM PDT<\/em><\/p>\n

(Will Baude)<\/em><\/p>\n

The New York Times\u2019s Ethicist column is infamously awful<\/a>, but I had generally found that the new columns by Chuck Klosterman were not as bad as they\u2019d been before. Nonetheless, today\u2019s paper featured a howler<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the question:<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

I\u2019m on the art-museum board, so that is my preferred artistic donee. An acquaintance repeatedly called me for a donation to the opera. I don\u2019t like opera. I said he should donate to the art museum. He said he\u2019d give to the museum whatever I gave to the opera. We agreed on $10,000 apiece. He called the next four years and offered to make the same deal. I accepted each year. As I was looking through our donor list for unrelated reasons, I discovered he has been giving only $1,000 a year. I sent him an e-mail telling him of my discovery, and he responded, \u201cNailed me.\u201d As if it were funny. What is my ethical response? Demand my excess back from the opera? Threaten to sue him if he doesn\u2019t pony up to the museum? Gossip?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Klosterman responds, in part:<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

As for pursuing legal action: I don\u2019t even know how that would work. There was no contract signed. It\u2019s not illegal to persuade someone to donate money to an opera house (it would be different if your acquaintance were operating on behalf of the opera\u2019s board, or if the opera facility didn\u2019t actually exist \u2014 but that\u2019s not how you described the transaction).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Klosterman\u2019s answer demonstrates a frequent misconception about contract law, namely that most contracts need to be \u201csigned\u201d to be legally enforceable. That is not the case. For the most part, oral agreements are just as binding as written ones. To be sure, there is a small set of contracts that are generally governed by the \u201cstatute of frauds\u201d<\/a> and must be in writing \u2014 like long-term leases, contracts that inherently take more than a year to perform, and contracts for the sale of at least $500 in goods. But there\u2019s no reason from the letter to think those exceptions apply. (A donation is not \u201cgoods\u201d; they made a new agreement every year.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Rather, the usual problem with oral contracts is that it\u2019s hard to prove the existence or content of the contract in court, but even that is taken care of by the subsequent email exchange in which the other guy confesses.<\/em><\/p>\n

(It\u2019s also the case that an enforceable contract has to have \u201cconsideration,\u201d rather than just being a one-sided promise of a gift. But this contract has two sides because each side is agreeing to give to the other\u2019s preferred charity.)<\/em><\/p>\n

I may well be missing something (or there may be unusual facts that aren\u2019t disclosed in the column), but I can\u2019t think of a reason why the contract wouldn\u2019t be enforceable. Indeed, it\u2019s almost as if it was written by a contracts professor as a textbook example of an enforceable contract.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I picked up this thing about legal contracts from somewhere \u2014 don’t remember where \u2014 just at the point my cousin Naomi The Younger told me about Chuck Klosterman’s list of villainous names. “Naomi” is number 5. Naomi The Younger … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[337],"tags":[560],"class_list":["post-15434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-news","tag-contract-law"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t