Talk:Contract/Archive 3

message: Wikidea writes (with my responses in bold):
:I'm sorry, but the terminology elements of a contract just doesn't make sense; it might make more sense if you said elements of contractual formation. (Disagree. Formation is a process of two parties coming to an understanding and agreement. A contract itself is composed of certain elements. If you want to talk about formation, then start a new section. Defining the basic elements which define all contracts is THE MOST BASIC AND NECESSARY PART of an encyclopedia entry on Contract.) Elements of a contract could easily refer to terms, or what's inside a contract. ( I have added Terms to this section. Does this make things better for you?) Again, I'm really sorry, but you've just got a lot of the stuff plain wrong. (Again, specific examples and citations please) It's not, as I tried to explain, a requirement for contractual formation that someone is not a child (Strongly disagree. I have asked for you repeatedly to demonstrate this with caselaw or other references. In every civilized nation I've ever heard of, children are not considered sui juris and being sui juris is a requirement for contract formulation. Children cannot marry, children cannot vote, they cannot purchase houses, or drive cars, or be conscripted into the military. They cannot because they are not "of their own right". Insane or Non compos mentos? Not sui juris. Not a human? Not sui juris. Not an adult? Not sui juris. The only exception to this that I know of is the case of a corporation, which has been granted personhood by the courts) all that stuff belongs together in a section about setting contracts aside. (FINE! Create new section. Just please don't delete basic and necessary information from the Elements section.) An illegality topic is the equivalent of what is on the list - lawful purpose. (Again, this is true. But would you describe what's in a box by first describing what isn't there? THis is what you are doing. Instead of talking about what a contract IS, you are focusing on what a contract ISN'T. THis is not typical of encyclopedias which I have looked at.) The stuff about mutual rights to remedy, etc, again, they just don't make sense, or don't explain what they mean. ( I disagree. I think it is very clear. A slave has no right of remedy, so a master/slave relationship is not contractual. Another example which lawyer types insert into contracts used upon the unsuspecting public are so-called "indemnifaction" clauses. They state "by signing this, I waive all rights to remedy". To a layperson who doesn't understand that right to remedy is essential to all contracts, this seems acceptable, and this state of ignorance is followed by getting screwed. You state you want to inform people with these changes. Is this true, Wikidea?)
:I see that before you began reverting, you made one edit on this page, coincidentally on this same section, back on Janurary 4 2004, so I appreciate that you feel attached to it, and all the hard work you've put in. But it's really not fair on people who want to look at the article to be informed. (I am fine with reorganization. I am fine with enhancement. But when you DELETE THE MOST BASIC AND NECESSARY INFORMATION, or turn statements into questions, and otherwise make the information more obscure, that is when I have a problem. Parts of this article needs a lot of work. THe Elements section is not one of them, as it's pretty good.)
:And once again, the point I stated over and over before which you haven't replied to, the template, which was written by people who seem to have read a few books, starts with a section on contractual formation. And then the stuff about capacity (or the sui juris adult, as you said) is in a different section. Why can the page not be like the template? Wikidea 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I concur with Bhuston's critique.  Contract formation is important, but I think it's more important to first explain what is actually being formed! --Coolcaesar 09:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I lose, you win! If it's alright, I'll just do the things that people seem to approve of - with some of the other headings. Not all at once though! So I'm moving the elements part to the top, because maybe it's good to serve as an introduction? - and the contract/obligations discussion down with contract theory. Wikidea 09:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not about winning/losing. It's about making sure the encyclopedia is always improved, and when that happens, we all win. --Bill Huston  (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Wikidea's last 

message: Okay, so the elements of contract isn't being touched. I just wanted to make more adjustments that I had before - putting some of the case citations into proper references, and some 'further reading. Then I'm going to put in the bits on mistake, misrep, duress and undue influence that were there before, under 'setting aside the contract'; because I think these are really useful additions to expand upon.
And no more changes tonight. Can I ask though, would it be okay to get rid of the 'scope of contract' section? We can get rid of the 'verbose format' of questions at the start, and give contract formation its own ==heading==. Under that, perhaps there could be more on offer+acceptance, consideration, intention to be legally bound and formalities(i.e.statute of frauds). This can be merged with the discussion on unilateral contracts and written contracts, to cut down a little. Privity (or third parties) can be put at the bottom in its own category. Wikidea 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made edits in stages this time, so if there are any objections, perhaps the bit that the person is interested in can be changed alone, without removing all the changes I made? As discussed, the scope of contract part has been disbursed. Here's what's gone where in the last edit, which is the only confusing one, and couldn't be explained in the small space on the history thing:
*written contracts = formalities and writing, with proper link to statute of frauds page
*void, voidable and unenforceable=in the setting aside contracts bit; except the uncertain, incomplete and severance parts, which I think belong best in their own category?
*bilateral v unilateral - with offer and acceptance section:that's especially a good place, because the carlill case deals with this exactly
*express and implied contracts, into offer and acceptance again, which now has a link to a main article too (better place for some detail)
And then I put up a part about the german approach to contract law (or Vertragrecht) which differs. I'll try to do more on german law soon, and perhaps the worldwide view warning can be removed?Wikidea 08:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And next? 

message: This article suffers from a heavy case of what you might call "1L bias" - it consists almost exclusively of the kind of material covered in a first-year contracts class in an American law school.  The history of contract, contract in non-common-law systems, and nonlegal (e.g. philosophical, religious, sociological) conceptions of contract are not covered at all.  Perhaps the article would be better titled "contract under common law"? Elliotreed 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why complain? If you are able, why not write those sections yourself? --Bill Huston  (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I can put in a bit more about civil law systems, and make it less common law oriented. There's a heading now about the german 'abstraction principle' and the section on consideration now compares with civil law. Moreover, the majority of the cases cited aren't from the States, but the Commonwealth. So it's not entirely true that its straight from US law school. There's a part for contract theory down the bottom where you could write all the stuff you know about philosophical, religious and sociological conceptions of contract, if you want? Wikidea 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main objection is that it will be too long if we cover the specifics of both civil and common law in the one article. My suggestion would be to make this a summary article that highlights the common features of both systems, and then we have specific articles for both systems. The advantage of this is that most people reading it would usually be interested more on one particular system of law. However, I don't know enough about civil to do this. enochlau (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the page should be an intro, and sketch the main areas. Expansive detail really belongs in pages that the contract article links to. However, there is a great deal in common, and it's difficult to just talk of the 'civil law'. The French(plus the Americas, Italy, Spain, parts of Africa, etc, etc) and the Germans(plus Japanese, Chinese) are the two dominant models. I'd say it's mainly the absence of consideration and the better development of unjust enrichment law (so the remedies for breach part) that are the big differences. There's also a lot of interesting stuff going on in the EU, where contract law is trying to be harmonised - so you've got a third system developing!Wikidea 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just another thought - if a rule is stated in the article, like "an offer is interpreted objectively" and a reference is given, then when the rule is the same in another country, that can just be reflected in the footnotes - a US case, an English academic and an article of the French code civil altogether, for instance. That way the article itself isn't cluttered up so much, perhaps?Wikidea 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a "contracts" article at all - retitle? 

message: I don't understand why an attempt to add a link to other laws (which are not UK or US) is deleted. The articles is about contracts worldwide and all relevent interwikilinks point to this - why then such link is deleted? unless it is some uk-us biased article and all reference to other countries should be deleted. Deror 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, one of Wikipedia's core content policies.  A lot of other links on that External links list have to be purged, too, but no one has got around to it yet! --Coolcaesar 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either no links go to specific countries or links can be made for other countries - Wikipedia is not solely infomation about US law (as most editors think) and the external links are aimed to add more information which is relevant and not in the main article.  Deror 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldwide view