This morning PS was peeved because TT was wearing her shorts. TT came into my room to inform me that PS had told her that she had to take off the shorts or pay her $1. I told TT that she didn't have time to change, and since I bought all of PS's clothes, she did not have the right to charge rent for them.
A few minutes later both girls came running downstairs with a piece of paper--a contract. It read "I [TT] promise not to wear [PS's] clothes without permission or unless mom or dad says I have to." With signature lines and everything.
TT wanted me to review it before she signed. I informed them that it was not an enforceable contract unless supported by consideration. TT was the only one giving up anything--the right to steal her sister's clothes.
The girls disappeared again, and when they came back downstairs the next time TT was carrying a stuffed dog and PS had her signed contract.
PS says she has no interest in becoming a lawyer, but I still think there's hope.
21 comments:
omg, really? That is the best thing I've heard all day! I'd have been cracking up if my kid did that!! So funny!
Ditto Cee.
That is awesome, I love it.
If you're going to get caught up about consideration, did you tell them that it's not enforceable because they're minors? Either teach the lesson well or don't teach it at all.
Love this!
Best kid story ever. :)
You need to save that contract and pull it out the day PS is sworn into the bar.
Who peed in your Cheerios this morning, anon?I find it amusing that an anonymous poster who probably has no children or legal experience is chastising me for telling a funny story about my kids.
The internet has become toxic with those who are emboldened by anonymity to snark at others. Are your own lives so miserable that you have to hide behind a computer screen and search out someone to be hateful to? And you're such wimps that you will only post anonymously?
Seriously, take a step back and look at what an ass you've made of yourself.
... says the woman who uses a nome de plume to post her blog. It's a bit hypocritical to criticizes other's use of the very anonymity you seek and take advantage of.
I'll be happy to post my name when you post yours.
And yes, I have a child and a legal education. However, when I teach my child about the law, I don't assume she's incapable of learning it the right way.
Oh, but you see the difference is that I don't use my anonymity to make snarky comments. I have never posted to anyone's blog without using my real name or my internet alias which gives some level of accountability.
Yes, I "hide" behind anonymity so that I can blog as honestly as possible about balancing family and a career. I don't use it to criticize.
Take your vitriol elsewhere.
So wait, your honesty is a virtue but mine is not? Was my original comment not correct? It seems that you only want to hear "honest" comments that agree with you.
It isn't about disagreeing with someone, it's about doing so while still treating others with respect. You could have stated your opinion without being a douche about it, Anonymous. And the point about being an anonymous asshole, rather than an out-in-the-open asshole, is that you aren't linking back to your own blog, whether it's written under a pseudonym or not. The civility filter tends to get turned off in such circumstances.
Even so, I hate when people want to nitpick every statement everyone else makes just to be a know-it-all. *Yes* a minor's contract isn't enforceable (except in certain circumstances), but for the love of all things holy, how much of an asshole would you have to be to sit there and explain that to those two kids and burst their bubble? Might as well tell 'em there's no Santa Claus too.
I guess we should all take respect lessons from Proto Attorney.
The hypocrisy here is outstanding. Proto attorney criticizes what s/he views as a lack of respect shown by one posters by calling that person a "douche" and an "anonymous asshole" - and s/he does so anonymously while simultaneously insisting that civility is filtered by anonymity. ROTFLMAO. Really?
I would suggest that the original controversial post is FAR less disrespectful than Proto's missive.
If you hadn't noticed, my comments link back to my profile and blog. I own the comments I make, even if it isn't obvious who I am to the random reader, it isn't all that difficult to figure out. Not to mention the other bloggers in this circle know my identity. So if I come to LC's blog and leave a rude comment, she knows exactly who I am.
And yes, you should definitely take a lesson. When you come to someone's blog and make a rude comment, don't be all shocked that others won't treat you with the respect you failed to show. I certainly won't be taking the high road (in fact, I generally take the low road). You get labeled a douche and no one cares about your opinion. So bugger off and go anonymously insult someone else. Leave LC alone.
Pronto - if you're so open, post your name. I went to your blog and have no idea who you are. But otherwise, you're simply a hypocrite.
Unlike you, I've never called anyone a douche or an asshole. Now that might be considered taking the high road where you are from, but I don't think most people consider that morally superior behavior. All I said is that someone making big fanfare about teaching their children about contracts might want to teach them the real story.
As crack attorneys, are you more likely to see a contracts fail for lack of consideration or for incapacity? If pointing that out makes me an asshole, then so be it.
Perhaps I'll have to start reading your blog posts on civility because clearly you have a lot to teach others.
I heart Proto--I'd totally want you on my side in a bar fight.
Anon, your first comment would have been fine if you had stopped with your initial question. But the presumptive order to "teach the lesson well or don't teach it at all" reeks of the need to point out your superiority.
First, I gave a snippet of one morning's conversation. I wasn't "making a big fanfare" I was relating a story 1) to preserve it for myself--the primary purpose of my blog; and 2) because I though other lawmoms would find it amusing. Clearly you did not. If you don't like my blog, then don't read it. Pretty simple.
Further, you have no clue about other conversations that I have had with my children. I am familiar with their body of knowledge--and I know that we have actually discussed whether kids can be bound by contracts and whether kids have property rights. (As geeky as that is.) I guess I didn't feel the need to include the entire history of my kids' legal education in telling my story.
And the enforceability of the kid contract would be determined by me-- because I make the rules in my house and I'm the judge who enforces them. But I guess that wouldn't be teaching the law correctly either, would it? And I guess the work I did in law school helping kids put on a mock trial so that they could learn how the court system works was also useless? In one of them Harry Potter was suing over a broken wand. Oops, he's a minor--guess we should have ditched the whole project. In another the Three Little Pigs were suing the Big Bad Wolf. OMG, they are PIGS--I'm pretty sure non-humans aren't allowed to litigate, either. Boy, there are a lot of people in my legal community who would not agree that these exercises are futile.
75% of my job is litigating commercial contracts, which means I spend a hell of a lot of time reading and interpreting contracts. I think I'm quite well positioned to teach MY children about that particular area of the law in the way that I see fit.
Now, since I also make the rules regarding this blog, I will delete future comments. I have never deleted a non-advertising comment, but you just don't seem to want to go away. I argue for a living--I don't need to do it here.
LC - my girls have recently gotten in a similar argument. I wish they ended it themselves as peacefully (and impressively) as yours did! Nicely done, all around.
I've always wanted to be in a bar fight! I'm so there!
Holy crap. That was insane. I will happily (and non-anonymously) submit that Anonymous was in fact acting like a douche.
If someone had said "Oh but they were minors so you should have told them it was unenforceable" and left it at that, I would have thought they were one of us and being funny.
Choosing between being a douche or being funny, hmmm, tough choice!
Thanks to all of you who left positive comments. I'm not accustomed to so much controversy here--especially from such a seemingly innocuous post. I'm sure I've posted far more controversial topics that didn't generate any response.
I hope this incident hasn't scared off any commenters. I have not shut off anonymous commenting and I don't intend to. I get that sometimes it's a PITA to log in before you can post. My only expectation is that you exercise the same level of civility that you would if we were sitting in the same room. In my 5th year of blogging, this is the first time I have had an issue--although I know that some of my fellow MILPs have had similar problems.
That's adorable.
Oddly, I thought the first anonymous comment was meant with humour - was quite surprised by the following thread (which included comments by anonymous which suggested it might have been serious).
Our Kiwi sense of humour is more Flight of the Conchords/British - understatement.
Anyway - I think it's a lovely story.
And I think one step at a time for contract enforceability lessons at any rate!
(I post away from my IRL blog, which is linked to my business name - but keep the moniker RJ across blogs)
BTW - long time lurker, enjoy your blog - thanks for it. I hope you get back to Dauphin Island too.
Post a Comment