【Episode 33 – The Psychos' Contract, Creative Defense (2)】
A few days later, during Commercial Law class.
Professor Richard Cox held a small moot court, just as he had announced in the previous lesson.
"The topic I originally planned to throw out was a bit cliché—whether an oral contract to briefly look after a friend's puppy was valid—but over the weekend, I heard about a very interesting case. And when I looked into it, turns out it's something that actually happened. Since it's related to what we're currently learning about, 'formation of contract,' I thought I'd change the topic. So, the issue we'll be debating today is..."
｢Should the New York court recognize the male student's claim that a contract to engage in sexual acts between him and his girlfriend, a student at Dunham Law School, is valid?｣
Professor Cox projected a PowerPoint slide with the thesis onto the whiteboard.
The provocative topic already had the students buzzing. Mouths were itching to speak.
"Normally, moot court proceeds in a one-on-one format, but today I'm not planning to be quite so formal. Let's do it like this. The left side is the plaintiff, the right side is the defendant. If you have something to say, raise your hand, and I'll give you the floor, okay? Now then, before we get into the discussion, let me first clarify the facts. How this contract was concluded is..."
More than half the students already knew about the case.
However, since it had been passed from mouth to mouth (or from Twitter to Twitter), the facts each person knew varied slightly.
Professor Cox wrote out the facts he had researched on the whiteboard.
｢-The man and woman are classmates attending the same school; both are adults.
-They had known each other for about a year and had started dating approximately four months before the lawsuit was filed.
-When they began dating, the man wanted to have sexual relations with the woman, but the woman rejected his advances.
-Disappointed by the woman's rejection, the man suggested breaking up, whereupon the woman asked him to wait just three months.
-After much deliberation, the man accepted the woman's request and in exchange extracted a promise that they would have sexual relations on the day of the Halloween party three months later.
-Halloween arrived.
-The woman refused sexual relations. Her reason was that she felt they should get to know each other better.
-The man was sulky. However, he respected the woman's reason.
-But!
-It turned out that during those three months, the woman had engaged in sexual relations with another man.
-The man was furious. He pressed the woman to have sexual relations with him as well.
-The woman demanded they break up.
-The man filed a lawsuit in New York court for breach of contract.｣
"Since this isn't a case where a judgment has been rendered, the facts might be inaccurate, but for the sake of today's moot discussion, let's just assume that's how it is, okay? Now then, who among those sitting on the plaintiff's side would like to state their argument first?"
Had this been Korea, it would have been a lawsuit condemned as utter nonsense, but America was different.
It was the country of "creative" legal professionals.
Freedom of contract (Freedom of contract: the principle of freedom of contract) was recognized far more broadly.
For example, in Korea, prenuptial agreements were not recognized. Even though there was no explicit provision in the statute stating that prenuptial agreements were void, the courts interpreted it as such.
Even though it was, in a way, an agreement between rational adults.
America was not like that.
In America, various kinds of contracts existed.
At the extreme, it was possible to have contract clauses even for things such that, upon marriage, one could have a child through another woman, and divorce could be prohibited on those grounds.
Therefore, the students on the defendant's side could not mount a convincing rebuttal to the opinion that the man's claim should be accepted.
"The agreement in this case is a contract between free individuals possessing the right to self-determination, and must be recognized as valid under the principle of freedom of contract."
"That is not so. The performance of this contract violates good morals and public order, and is therefore void."
"When refusing to recognize a contract on the grounds that it violates good morals and public order, the court must be cautious. The defendant has not specified for what reason this contract violates good morals and public order."
*
"There was a mistake."
"Excuse me?"
"The defendant gave her consent without ever thinking that such a contract would be legally valid, hence it is void."
"Even if the defendant truly thought so, such a thought was mistaken based on the defendant's unilateral misconception. Legally, for a contract to be invalidated based on such a unilateral mistake, there must have been statements by the other party inducing such a misconception, or immoral conduct—in this case, there were no such statements or actions."
"Is it normal to sue in court because you want to have sex with a woman? That is what's immoral!"
*
"This contract is an illegal contract. Since it contracts an act of prostitution, if the court recognizes it, the court would be aiding an illegal act. Therefore, it must not be recognized."
"No. According to New York Penal Law Section 230, prostitution means engaging in sexual conduct for money, or agreeing to such conduct for money. In the facts of this case, there was no claim that money was received."
"Regarding that provision, the court in the Camilla Case held that it includes not just money but anything of monetary value."
"Then is the defense counsel for the defendant now claiming that their own client is a prostitute?"
"Excuse me? Ah, that's..."
Hahaha—hahaha—
Amid the serious discussion, excited students, students making witty jokes.
"Now now, let's not turn our own client into a criminal just to win a lawsuit. Okay?"
Hahaha—hahaha—
There was no clear answer, but no rebuttal sufficient to definitively defeat the argument that the contract was valid had emerged.
Right then,
"Eleanor."
Eleanor, sitting in the defendant counsel's seat, raised her hand.
"The contract is valid."
Since she, who should have been arguing that the contract was void, admitted it, several students tilted their heads in confusion.
"However, the court cannot force an individual to have sex with someone."
It was a clever argument.
While everyone was making strained arguments to claim the contract was void, she targeted the 'damages' aspect.
"Then the plaintiff's side will claim damages!"
"Can you prove the damages incurred from not being able to have sex with the defendant? Compensation for emotional distress? Or, pain from blue balls (pain from blue balls: refers to a type of testicular pain caused by the inability to engage in sexual activity)?"
Hahaha—
Laughter spread through the classroom once more at Eleanor's remark.
She had a talent for drawing the audience's attention.
Perhaps it was one of the answers he had expected. Professor Cox, who had been listening quietly, cut in with a satisfied expression.
"Good strategy. As Eleanor said, the court cannot force someone into unwanted sexual relations. It's also true that since they're not married and the number of times they agreed to have sex isn't clear, it would be difficult to calculate damages. Good strategy. However, the unfortunate thing is that it strays slightly from the moot discussion topic I set for today. I asked the defendant's counsel to argue for the voidance of the contract. So, final rebuttal opportunity for the defense. Anyone? Anyone?"
The classroom grew quiet at the professor's question.
Wandering gazes gradually gathered on Seheon.
"Yeah, Heon. Doesn't our NYU Law freshman star have anything to add? Well, all the arguments worth making have already come out. But just in case. Nothing?"
No.
"I have something."
Under Anglo-American law, there were various grounds for voiding a contract: mistake, duress, illegality, violation of public policy (public policy), and others.
Among them...
"There is an argument that hasn't come out yet."
"Really? What is it?"
"Misrepresentation."
Misrepresentation (misrepresentation: false representation, fraudulent statement).
If, at the time of the contract, a fact or law material to the formation of the contract was presented falsely, and the other party agreed to the contract based on such false representation (or false statement), that contract may be rescinded.
Simply put, it was the argument that 'since fraud was committed, the contract is void.'
"Misrepresentation? What fraud did the man commit?"
"When she consented to sexual relations, he appeared to be a man wonderful enough that she would want to have sexual relations with him. The reason he appeared that way was because he packaged himself as such. However, that is clear misrepresentation and false packaging. The reason the defendant refused sexual relations after three months was because she realized the plaintiff lacked the worthiness to have sexual relations with, and the proof that he is a man without such worth is demonstrated by the very fact that he filed this lawsuit. Therefore, the contract the plaintiff claims is void."
At Seheon's answer, half nodded their heads, and half tilted their heads in confusion.
Right then,
Clap clap clap
Professor Cox clapped.
"Haha, that's creative. I didn't think of that one. How about it? Plaintiff's counsel, any opposing opinions sufficient to rebut the argument Heon just raised?"
The classroom fell silent.
After a moment, Thomas, one of the students assigned to the plaintiff's defense, raised his hand and spoke.
"The expression 'worthiness to have sexual relations' is ambiguous in itself, and merely the fact that the lawsuit was filed cannot prove a lack of worthiness rather than a simple change of heart."
Seheon answered immediately.
"It is not ambiguous. 'Worthiness to have sexual relations' refers to the quality that makes one want to have sexual relations. The plaintiff lacked or was deficient in such quality, which is why a three-month period was set in the first place, and the fact that the defendant had sexual relations with another man during that period confirms this. Therefore, it is appropriate to view the contract in this case as void from the beginning; however, if one were to say there was a contract, viewing it as 'in the process of negotiating a contract' rather than 'a contract was formed' is more reasonable."
Thomas frowned.
He was thinking of some brilliant rebuttal.
But unfortunately, the opportunity did not come.
Clap clap clap!
Professor Cox rendered his judgment.
Basketball Game Ticket (1)
She was someone I had met at sixteen.
So the emptiness I felt when I realized I could no longer share my life with her was an emotion beyond words.
I was twenty-six.
'Father is dying, the whole family is struggling, and you're going on about love? Get a grip, you bastard.'
I muttered this countless times in the operating room—that the time I had spent with her was trivial compared to the situation my family was in.
My father's health only stabilized about two years after his liver transplant.
Fortunately, around that time, the family circumstances began to improve as well.
But only then did I realize how large a part Sujeong occupied in my life.
Actually, there was a time when I came to New York without telling anyone.
I had intended to meet her and beg her to come back to me.
I knew it was a cowardly act.
Because I was the one who had pushed her away, the one who had made the decision.
Even so, I wanted to see her.
But,
there was already someone else by her side.
I had held a strange expectation that didn't even align with logic—that she would be waiting for me.
She was living in the present; only I was still living two years in the past.
It would be a lie to say I didn't regret it.
Even so, I was grateful that I could at least see her from afar.
And, from that moment, the clock of my emotions, which had stopped when I parted with her, began to tick again.
[Seheon: Are you busy this weekend?]
[Seheon: If it's okay, want to grab lunch together on Saturday?]
[Sujeong: Oh, what's the occasion? You contacting me first. Sure.]
[Sujeong: What should we eat? Let's get Chinese!]
The moment I returned to 2012 and met her at twenty-four again, memories of those days came flooding back.
The happiest times of my life.
I was glad. It felt like finding a lost photo album.
It wasn't that I didn't feel like trying to make it work again.
Every moment, there was an unknown force that kept pulling me in.
Because that's what memories are.
But the clock of my emotions was set to 2022.
Just because my body had returned to 2012 didn't mean the memories of the past five years I had spent trying to forget her had disappeared.
"Hey, Seheon, have you been waiting long? Ah, I'm hungry. What do you want to eat? The wonton noodles and Shanghai noodles here are delicious."
I had already hurt her once before.
So this time, I tried not to do it like before.
The 2012 version of her held good feelings toward me, and since I bore some responsibility for her having those feelings, I tried to act with as much consideration as possible.
It wouldn't be natural to tell her not to like me when she hadn't even confessed.
And yet...
At the freshman party the other day, I had sensed it.
That if I didn't make it clearer, she might not realize I was pushing her away.
"Jeong Sujeong."
"Hmm?"
"If you happen to have feelings for me beyond friendship..."
I thought it would be better to make it clear now rather than hurt her more later.