Basic Contract and Sales Law

Evolution supports religion.
How evolution and religion join forces to maintain the human species.

For many thousand years evolution has supported the growth of religion. This may seem a paradox since religious books do not match Darwin’s theories very well. But evolution nevertheless strongly supports religion. Furthermore, religion and sexuality have always had a troublesome coexistence. But changes are to be expected. Let me put together some simple facts. These facts can be found in your daily newspaper and need no specific references. Nevertheless they make it possible for me to give a certain forecast for the next centuries:

Sexuality has now reached its all-time high. In our days it will culminate, and from now on it will lose its influence. Religion, on the other hand, is on the march forward. This is because we right now are about to make the biggest experiment in the entire history of mankind: From now on the success of the human species is no longer dependant on sex. During the one (or perhaps two) million years of human history up until now the statistical fact has been that much sex results in many children and little sex equals fewer children. People equipped with a great sexual desire had many children; children who therefore in the next generation were also equipped with a strong sexual appetite. Then these children grew old and had their own children with a great sexual desire and so on and so on ..... People with a lesser sexual desire made it less of a priority to spread their genes to future generations; these people gave other activities higher priority than sex. This resulted in fewer children. Thereby the overall sexual desire has increased for every generation all the way through the history of mankind and it is now culminating in a true deluge. What this has lead to, can be seen every day on the internet, on TV and in popular magazines. They are flooded with sex. But the problem from the evolution’s point of view is this: All this constant sexual activity everywhere does not result in as many children as the evolutionary history would make us expect, because the most sexually active among us are usually very aware of things like contraception and abortion.

This phenomenon will lead to the fact that now in our days the sexual desire culminates. This happens now because for the first time in history the human being does not need to have sex in order to have children. This will obviously affect the view of sex: Sex will no longer be so important, and it will no longer pose any threat to religion. That someone has sex will not be any more interesting than someone playing scrabble or tennis. No longer will sex be shocking news for journalists. For sex is no longer an existential activity for humanity. It may be a fun and exciting activity that one can enjoy, similar to other activities you may engage in. Thus, religion will rather concentrate on the fight against this gang of four; deadly sins like abortion, euthanasia, contraception and laziness, also here with the full support of evolution.

From now on the people, who bring children into this world, will be the people who have faith in life, regardless of the level or direction of their sexual desire. A man does not need to release sperm more than once, preferably while he is still young and healthy. This does not take that much sexual desire. The sperm can then be frozen so that his female partner(s) may be with children at a time when it suits them. If a woman does not want to walk around pregnant, she may, in a few years, be able to choose to take advantage of the artificial uterus. This machine is able to play the quiet and pleasant voices of the parents (of course not the angry and unsettling ones), along with music that the couple likes. This is much safer than the natural pregnancy, and you can better control the birth, which is among the most deadly high-risk activities we are exposed to. Partners may have sex if they feel like it, but it is no longer indispensable. They may as well play scrabble or tennis in order to enjoy life.

However, it is indispensable that some people have faith in life and in the value of populating this haunted planet. Some of us have to have faith in God's strange enterprise of putting a couple of homo-sapiens into a pleasant garden on a tiny blue planet for a tiny period of the long history of the universe. Unfortunately homo-sapiens has been a disaster for the environment. The whole homo-sapiens enterprise turned out to be like the release of rabbits in Australia, with a huge environmentally harmful proliferation as a result. So how should prospective parents obtain the essential belief in human life? From science? Not at all! The scientists’ optimistic view has derailed. These days science is instead worried about more loose nuclear cannons on deck, resistant bacteria and new pandemics, climate crisis and financial crisis. In the end, this planet will, in a few billion years after the last human has drawn its last breath, continue to rotate around its axis in 24 hours, as well as around the sun with lap time 365 and a fourth, and the solar system will continue to rush out into the universe at a tremendous speed. These celestial bodies will happily continue as if nothing had happened, without ever noticing that homo-sapiens is no longer on board. Science has certainly not given us any reason to hope, and it has certainly not been able to replace God:

Science cannot explain to us where we come from, why we are here and where we're going to go. Science simply does not possess the tools to analyze these types of questions. Where can we then find answers? Yes, precisely: In religion! From now on religious people will be the ones who see the greatest reason to carry their genes on. Their strong religious genes, that is. Add to this that religious people tend to be more sceptical towards contraception and abortion than other people on the planet. So sorry, atheists and critics of religion: Religion is here to stay, and faces a bright future over the next centuries. Sexual desire decreases while religion grows. Simply follow the trend in the years to come. Changes will already start to occur in a century or two.

It is totally irrelevant that religious people criticize Darwinism. Neither does it matter that the high priests of Evolution ridicule the fundamentalists for their incredible stupidity on the origin of the Earth and its inhabitants. Evolution itself is generously turning religion the other cheek, and does nevertheless strongly support the religious people. For how long will this last? It will last until science can compete with the religions in giving people hope for the future. Until science itself can find out where we come from, why we are here and where we are going. Science is nowhere near that today. It will probably still take a few centuries to develop the necessary scientific tools. The human being may very well have to leave this planet for good in ignorance, without having found any scientifically durable answers to these questions.

Against this background, it is incomprehensible that millions of empirical scientific papers can be published without the researcher giving an account of his perception of where we come from and where we're going. They act like a motorist who was struck by amnesia during a stop at a rest area: He has forgotten where he came from, and cannot remember in which direction he was travelling. But this does not seem to worry him when he studies the flora, insects or bird life on the site, analyzes the contents of the bin or in WC's, interviews people, interprets and analyzes the practice of rules, etc., etc., all with a view to publish scientific works about his findings. As if he would stay at this rest area forever. The scientists are short sighted and detailed in their abdication of the big questions, and they thoughtlessly leave humanity to religion and other loose philosophy, as an easy prey.

Evolution has spoken: Religion is going to win the battle for the future of the human species. This is not, however, to say that religion is true or that evidence of God now has been presented. On the contrary, as pointed out above, we have not been able to find the truth yet.

But this cooperation with religion is not evolution’s only plan. Evolution has an alternative plan, which may not seem as safe as the religious alternative described above. Evolution has closed in all animals a desire to have offspring. The female feels strongly that evolution is waiting for her to have offspring. This also applies to the homo-sapiens female. Evolution has evolved the woman the way that she will strongly want children. In fact, even want children regardless of all the problems I have mentioned above, and regardless of religious affiliation. And what has surprised me the most: Even atheistic women want children. Why on earth will they want that? They should not be able to find any future and hope on this planet. Why do they still want children? Why struggle with the sperm and egg donations, which religion mostly opposes? When they only create misery for the new individual they bring into life? The answer is that evolution has placed a strong desire for offspring deep into the female body and soul. This makes it physically and mentally, though irrationally, so very hard not to have children that you are willing to do anything. Not everyone can be comforted with a teddy bear or a pet. The female homo-sapiens has during the last hundred thousand years, perhaps even longer, had a conscious awareness that she actually brings forth a new human being. That the male counterpart also plays a necessary part in this is a relatively recent discovery. This must necessarily have led to genetic traces in the individual female, and as a logical result, to the fact that today's women to a greater extent than men feel a sense of loss at not getting their own offspring, almost like a blind animal impulse.

After the fading out of the troublesome sexual desire, these are evolution’s two very different main strategies to maintain human life on this planet: Cooperation with religion in persuading the humans that there is still future and hope; and on the other hand maintaining the strong evolutionary desire in the female human being to have offspring, even with the help of sperm and egg donations. Will these strategies succeed in the long run?

Contracts for free sex or is it nevertheless sale of goods?

This post is to stress the importance of solid contract work before the contract is fulfilled.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
or is it?
http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article4979989.ece
In Norway 90 volunteers (women and men) will “sell” sex for free.

According to CISG art 54, the buyer has to pay the price. But sale of sex is illegal in Norway, as far as the buyer is concerned. Therefore the payment of a price, of any kind, has to be taken away. Or else the buyer is guilty of a criminal offence according to the Norwegian criminal act § 202 A.
We have to read the contract, and interpret it carefully, and see if there is a price of any kind involved, see CISG art. 8:

(1) For the purposes of this Convention statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unaware what that intent was.
(2) If the preceding paragraph is not applicable, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances.
(3) In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would have had, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.

So we have to read the contract carefully and see if the contract reasonably interpreted, has no payment or says that the delivery is for free. Contract parties are free to decide whether or not a delivery is to be paid for. In this case they should sign a written contract.

This is a good advice everywhere when sexual encounters are to be taken for free. The contract should be written and signed, and clearly, in precise words, show which actions are permitted under the contract and which are not. Consent to sex does not mean consent to violence. The contract should also give the necessary information to prove that there is no undue influence at play, and that the contract in all aspect is a valid one.

This is the story of a Norwegian property owner who tried to negotiate her way around the Norwegian coastal act.

Some 20 years ago Hilde S wanted to build 5 cabins and fisherman's huts on her property on the coastline of Flekkerøya, a small island just outside the city of Kristiansand, Norway. Her plans were turned down by the Kristiansand City Council. She then got the splendid idea of bargaining with the City Council. She offered them some 90% of her property on the island for free, if they in return would let her build her five cabins and fisherman's huts on the remaining 10% of her coastline. According to the Norwegian coastal act you are not allowed to build a house that close to the water, but there is a possibility of dispensation, that is to make excemptions. The Kristiansand City council accepted the offer, received 90% of Hilde S's property and gave her permission to do what she wanted with the rest.

However, this case was brought in to the Norwegian Government, the Ministry of the Environment. There it was turned down, and Hilde S could not build her 5 cabins and fisherman's huts. She lost her permission.

Here we have a fundamental breach of contract. Hilde S had fulfilled her obligations according to the contract, in handing over and registering most of her property to Kristiansand City. But the Kristiansand City Council did not successfully fulfill their obligation to permit her to build, clearly a fundamental breach of contract. The Norwegian coastal law and the Ministry of the Environment in Oslo made it impossible for them to follow through. But no matter what caused the city not to deliver according to the contract, it is still a fundamental breach.

Now Hilde S' only option is to declare the contract avoided and get her property back, which she clearly has a right to do.

She cannot successfully sue Kristiansand City and claim her permission to build. The court is obviously not in a positon to force Kristiansand City to act illegally.

She cannot successfully sue the Ministry of Environment and claim her permission to build from them either. The Ministry of Environment is not a party of the contract.

So here the case ends, and for us, the people of Norway, this is probably a good thing because it means that some of our beautiful coastline is still open to public use.

Here is the Commission's proposal:

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/EU-Directives-2008/com-2008-614-proposal-on-consumer-rights.html

Which has been heavily critisized for diminishing the consumer rights in the countries which have reached the best consumer protection.

One benefit, however, is that it will be easier and more affordable to have your case heard when you buy something from another EU-country.

A good explanation we can read at this BBC web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7674841.stm

However, the most important question is:

Can we have economic growth? Is it possible any longer?

The world's oil production will reach its top in 2016. And we have yet to find a solution the present economic and financial crisis. That would grant you the Nobel prize in economics.

Because you will then have to explain why an unemployment rate (joblessness) at 20 % or maybe 30 % is good for this planet. Why people who have dreamed of reading the complete works of Henrik Ibsen, should be able to do so, and without sinking into extreme poverty.

You deserve the Nobel prize because you are able in terms of economics to explain why the oil will last longer with an unemployment rate (joblessness) at 20 % or 30 %.

The hire car stopped

I contacted a small car rental firm and hired an old car to drive to a town some miles away. Suddenly the battery lamp lit red. I went on driving, but on my way home the hire car from hell stopped. The battery was flat. I called the rental firm, but no one answered the call. A lorry came by and gave my and the hire car a lift to my home town, for which I had to pay 100 dollars. The hire car firm paid me back only the half of it. Is this right?

It’s not possible for me to say yes or no in a real case like this.

But let us see what we will have to consider. First a hire car with flat battery is not conforming to the hire contract. The rental firm has to check the car for crucial matters like for instance battery, oil, cooler liquid, before they deliver it. They cannot rely on the customer to do that checking. Even if it is not a bad idea for the customer to check the car as far as he/she is able to. And it is not a good idea to ignore a red lamp. But this may not have influenced on your case as the battery most likely was in a bad condition all the time. It depends.

The firm may claim that you should have called road side help to quick start the hire car when it had stopped, which might have been cheaper. But since they did not answer your phone call, it is a possibility that they may have lost their chance to choose remedy for the problem. And what you chose to do may not be regarded unreasonable in the situation.

So I think you may have a right to claim back all the 100 dollars you paid the lorry driver. In addition you may be entitled to some price reduction in the hire price you paid the rental firm, because you have not received as valuable a service as you reasonably could expect. This depends on the circumstances.

See CISG article 50 which is in accordance with general contract law:

If the goods do not conform with the contract and whether or not the price has already been paid, the buyer may reduce the price in the same proportion as the value that the goods actually delivered had at the time of the delivery bears to the value that conforming goods would have had at that time.

An example from the formation of a contract.

"Can I get my money back if I change my mind?
No. Building permit fees are non-refundable once the permit has been issued."

Quoted from:
http://www.cityoflennoxsd.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7BD3695AD2-B536-4C4C-B245-9A9806592D75%7D#{4F340D98-FFCC-48AA-B4A0-DE62225BAAAD}

Here the limit is set to "once the permit has been issued."

This seems to be in accordance with general contract law. It is therefore necessary to be aware of when you are negotiating a contract and are free to leave the table and when a binding contract is reached. Perhaps the parties should agree on this before they start their contract negotiations.

Even if the CISG does not apply to buildings, it is still a very good source for general contract law. See article 16:

Article 16
(1) Until a contract is concluded an offer may be revoked if the revocation reaches the offeree before he has dispatched an acceptance.
(2) However, an offer cannot be revoked:
(a) if it indicates, whether by stating a fixed time for acceptance or otherwise, that it is irrevocable; or
(b) if it was reasonable for the offeree to rely on the offer as being irrevocable and the offeree has acted in reliance on the offer.

If the seller has not delivered the goods, the buyer has a right to have his money. But even so, the seller has a right to make sure that he actually has received the money. Therefore I think the seller's answer in the following case is fair enough:

"Comment #3:

I placed a $43 order over a week ago, and nobody at DGM knows anything about it, although my money has been electronically sent to them. I never recieved an e-mail confirmation, but my money is gone, it seems forever. Not to mention the money that I wasted on that new KC "album".

So, Robert, or Guitarist, or whatever your calling yourself this week, can I have my money back?

Dan (The Webmaster) replies:
I'll let Robert comment on points 1 and 2, but I'll comment on point 3: if you did not receive a confirmation email when you placed your order, you either entered in an invalid email address or the order never completed correctly. The former reason is the more likely, but our logs show no order for $43 from you. As for lost money, if DGM never received the order, then you would never have been charged. Do you have confirmation of the charge being deducted from your credit card? Do you have your reference number which would have been provided on the final screen following your online order? This is info that would help get you your money back - which we'd be only too happy to do if we have taken it."

Quoted from:

http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?diarist=3&entry=1042

A case from Austria, see:

http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071219a3.html

"At the time the [Seller] changed its manufacturing process and started to use UV hardening casting resin -- at the end of 1997 -- it informed its customers about this, namely, the subsidiaries of the [Buyer]. Following this change, defects emerged in the course of the production of insulating glass, as the casting resin layer of the laminated glass started to show so-called "wormholes" (= partial detachment of the casting resin from the glass). The [Buyer] failed to give notice of these defects within two years after the delivery -- insofar as the delivery in dispute is concerned.
---
This period was a highly controversial issue at the diplomatic conference. It was classified as unreasonable by many representatives of industrial countries. Nevertheless, it finally became part of the compromise on the notification of a lack of conformity and was intended to strengthen the position of the seller in respect to the fact that after the expiry of a certain period of time he would no longer have to reckon with complaints and could thus finally conclude the transaction. (Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, loco citato, margin number 22)."

According to CISG article 39 (2), notice has to be given «

"at the latest within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer".

Mark the term «at the latest». It does not matter if the faults are hidden and could not possibly have been discovered within this period of two years. After two years a seller is entitled to consider the contract of sale to be settled and the transaction concluded.

Well, yes, but I am not able to give any exact answer stating an exact number of minutes.
But I have pointed out the most important CISG articles which are here in according to general principles of contract law. On which the national sales acts and consumer sales acts are written.

According to general contract law we must ask two questions:

Question 1:
Do we here have any breach of contract? Some minor delay has to be accepted. For bulk goods we earlier assumed +/- 3%. But we cannot measure late pizzas in percent, so we have to give a fair and reasonable assessment of the whole situation. Here all that has taken place between the contract parties, has to be taken into consideration.

If we find that a breach of contract has taken place, we may go to the next question:

Question 2:
Is the breach of contract a fundamental one? Breach of contract is not sufficient to cancel a contract. The breach has to be fundamental. Here much of the same things as in question 1) is relevant. But the situation has to be a lot more severe. See CISG article 25, which I mentioned some posts ago.