For want of “credible evidence” of consideration, a California judge has ruled that an investor cannot enforce a contract to recover about $170,000 from a Korean businessman -– even if it was written in blood.
Kim argued that the agreement he made with Stephen Son during an alcohol-fueled meeting in a bar carried extra weight because Son penned it in his own blood. Son promised to pay back the money Kim had provided to two companies he controlled.
But Cramin found there was insufficient evidence of consideration –- a central concept in the common law of contracts -– that would make the blood-contract binding.
Kim attorney Richard J. Radcliffe of Newport Beach may appeal. “We think the blood speaks for itself,” he said.
The lawyer who considers blood to be an extra-binding form of ink is probably a late-night movie buff. “We think the blood speaks for itself” is a very entertaining legal argument, but only carries weight if the contract is with Satan, and that would be a whole different trial.
Silly Lawyer, Blood contracts are only valid between one human and one supernatural demon/god.
“insufficient evidence of consideration –- a central concept in the common law of contracts”
Why doesn’t that apply to cell phone contracts? How much time do people take to read that receipt they call a contract before signing, not much if any.
There a vast number of consumer contracts that are given to you to sign where sufficient time to read and understand the terms is not given. Not only that, they are often written to obscure their true meanings. That doesn’t seem to irk any Judge.
I guess because consumers not reading a contract before signing it (often because they have another customer waiting right behind them) is common and culturally accepted, where as signing in blood is not. Being common or uncommon doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Satan is definitively going to personally collect this judge’s soul.
Ah, noname – it wasn’t about being ‘common or uncommon’. The judge ruled that the terms if the contract itself were legally defective and therefore unenforceable – and that there was no merit to plaintiff’s contention that the fact it was written in blood overrode any legal defect.
I mean, Jeez.
“I mean, Jeez.”
I want to assure the Lord of the Underworld I intended no offense… 😉
#6, Lauren, no offense taken! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! But please, mow your lawn soon…..