Narrator: keeping people bound by a contract against their (potential future) will is the entire point of a contract. https://twitter.com/spakhm/status/1343857180479467522 …
-
-
3/ Yep, I strongly agree w this. IMO (IANAL), the ideal contract doesn't mandate "specific performance" of one and only one path, but two or more alternatives.https://twitter.com/strongpoint71/status/1343890195179921409?s=19 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The marriage stuff has always seemed ridiculous.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
but at least for marriage in particular the purpose *is* for the most part to remove certain options because you can only achieve certain things with those options removed if you can get the option back any time, then the option was never removed in the first place
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
An entrepreneurial friend once told me that a business partner had said to him "contracts only exist to be broken." I was appalled until I came to understand that a good contract lays out provisions for who owes what to whom in the event that someone wants out.
-
That's the reason I have thought for a long time that a contract without exit clause is null.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It can also provide common knowledge that you're *willing* to be bound. Sometimes it's there to bind you so you can't take potentially tempting actions, other times it's mostly a costly signal that those actions *aren't* tempting unto you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.