From: huggett@sequent.com (Terri Huggett)
Subject: Re: Contracts (was Re: Rape Law Reform)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.154250.5187@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
>>"I was joking" doesn't get you out of any other contract, either. At the point
>>the person names the act and the price, a contract has been offered.  At this
>>point the law has been broken.  Saying that you were only joking doesn't get
>>you off the hook for verbally threatening someone or talking about bombs in
>>airports, either.
>>
>   I don't believe it. Claiming to be joking is a perfectly acceptable 
>defense. Do you mean that everytime I say "I'm going to hit you" I have
>committed assault?   Surely not. Most times when I say this, the alledged
>victim is perfectly aware that it is a joke. When the facts are known, 
>a jury will have no trouble aquitting me.
>   As far as bombs in airports, at least in Maryland, joking about it is
>a crime in itself. So in this case the jock can't be used in a defense.
>

OK.  One more time and then I give up on you Dan.  You are free to believe
what you wish, but it is getting tedious to have you phrase your opinions as
if they are legal interpretations.

These are not my opinions, this is how the law and the legal system 
view prostitution and their rape in many states by legal precedent.

Just as I pointed out in a post to you, solicitation (the contract) is a crime 
in-and-of-itself.  The agreement to sex for a specified sum of money is the
contract.  It makes no difference if ANY of the parties fullfill any 
part of the solicitation contract.  It is still a crime AND it is still a
contract.  And it is a crime for all parties, not just the prostitute.

Notwithstanding the tv shows you have viewed, police usually arrest
prostitutes and johns on the street and in their cars when the contract 
is agreed upon, and many are arrested in sting operations where the police
act as either prostitutes or johns.

In contract law, a contract does not have to specify legal acts to be
considered a contract.  It is not an enforceable contract but it IS a
contract.  A verbal contract is considered to be an agreement to the
entirety of the contract.  It is NOT considered to be an agreement to a
subset of the contract.  The example I gave you is apt, if you and Joe
Smith agree that you will paint his house for a specified sum of money, the
contract does not imply you simply agree to paint his house, nor that he 
simply agrees to pay you a sum of money, nor does it imply that you agree to
paint his house if he chooses not to pay you.  Thus, in contract law, and this
is how the legal system has interpreted the case in many states, the prostitute
agrees to sex for money.  She DOES NOT agree to sex.  Therefore, if the
john does not pay her, he has raped her because she DID NOT consent to sex.
He has technically defrauded her as well, but that is a legally
unenforceable part of the contract.  It is very rare for a prostitute to
bring such a charge and for a prosecutor to take such a case, and it almost
always involves serious injury.

Terri Huggett
huggett@sequent.com