Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 ...how often does ignorance of a law make you immune?...and there are probably plenty of times with the rich evidence gathered from stupid people to make that kind of claim difficult. You think Tiger's women could make that claim? True, but it seems like if it's a situation of being misled forcing you to breach the "contract". It's not a matter of legality, especially for someone who's not part of said contract, so I don't think the "ignorance of law" parallel applies. Completely different set of circumstance and rules. Obviously it would be a judgement call, and probably how believable the person is. In Tiger's case, they can't make that claim, their business is already way out there. But in other cases I could see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 they may not have signed a contract, but if you relate it to the business world, if an employee of company A develops something, then company B decides they want it so they slip money under the table to the employee of A, does B not get a fine or some other punishment for their tactics? and i swear ive heard of cases where that happened and company A sued company B for corporate espionage or something of the sort. so how is that different. company B didnt sign any contract but they willfully aided in the breaking of the contract between company A and the employee. so while they didnt sign a contract, they knew what they were doing was causing a legal contract to be broken. Its different in the corporate world because companies are made up of employees. In a marriage contract, its one person and another person. If you had two companies made up of individual people with a contract and a third company of one person came in and convinced company A (the only person) to divulge information, I dont think the third party would or should be held liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hershey, I think part of the problem is that many, including many in this thread, don't realize they are a part of the contract. Married is a legal status, and as such members of society are all part of the contract. We, through the state, give certain rights and responcibilities. As such, members of society are very much stakeholders in this contract. I think it's a falacy to say society has to stake in the family unit. If we truely had no stake, why the diferent tax codes? People seem to think the enforcement of contracts is only between the 2 people when in fact its impact goes well beyond that. I wonder how many foster kids would be cared for by their parents if they were still together? Instead the tax payers through the state get the costs of people's inability to respect the bestowed by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 So, what if one of the girls you are dating is married but moving out soon? Or, if the other tells you she is getting separated, but doesn't until you start dating them? I'm screwed. Glad I ain't got ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscofan Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Re-thinking the title - If you are the "other" person, are you considered a cheater if you are not in a seriously relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hershey,I think part of the problem is that many, including many in this thread, don't realize they are a part of the contract. Married is a legal status, and as such members of society are all part of the contract. We, through the state, give certain rights and responcibilities. As such, members of society are very much stakeholders in this contract. I think it's a falacy to say society has to stake in the family unit. If we truely had no stake, why the diferent tax codes? People seem to think the enforcement of contracts is only between the 2 people when in fact its impact goes well beyond that. I wonder how many foster kids would be cared for by their parents if they were still together? Instead the tax payers through the state get the costs of people's inability to respect the bestowed by the state. I don't think that applies at all. When you get married you get a "marriage license" that license officially acknowledges the union between (currently) a man and woman, they sign that contract that means they know and accept the terms of said agreement. I'm pretty sure there is nothing on that agreement that says "You, your SO and all American's hereby agree to the aforementioned terms of this agreement." When I went to get my license there was nothing on the agreement that I signed saying, "I understand under this agreement that I responsible for ensuring that any party I have sex with is not currently married." I never said that society has no stake in the family unit. I feel you're waxing a bit too poetic with this. I think if someone knows and intentionally agrees to assist someone in breaching their contract, then they need to face consequences as well. However, there's a distinct difference between someone knowingly breaking the "law" of marriage, and someone who may have been deceived. That's all I'm saying. So, what if one of the girls you are dating is married but moving out soon?Or, if the other tells you she is getting separated, but doesn't until you start dating them? I'm screwed. Glad I ain't got ****. This ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yes. You are an adulterer as well. While I'm not religous, I do note that most of the 10 commandments were geared towards what is needed for a functional society. You'll note one of them doesn't look very kindly on the covetting of another's spouse. I believe the Code of Hamurabi (sp?) was likewise inclined. Doing the horizontal tango with somebody else's spouse is one of those things which hurts society as a whole. Thus there have been warnings against it for as long as society has recorded. If you are an adulterer, you, as a member of the society recognizing the marriage contract, have cheated on your end of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Sorry but this is ridiculous. The third person did not enter into a contract like the two married parties did. They are the only ones that should be responsible for upholding that contract. While only 7 states recognize this particular cause of action, it is not as though it introduces a wholly novel concept. Many, if not all, states permit individuals and companies to recover upon a claim called "tortious interference with a contract." For example, suppose I open a contracting business and I win bids to perform work for various businesses. Then suppose that another much more powerful contractor tells my customers, "if you do business with him, we'll ruin your life." My customers then flee my business and breach the contracts. I want to be made whole for my losses, yet I don't want to go around suing my customers because it's a bad business practice. Fortunately, I would have the right to sue my competitor for "tortious interference with a business relationship" and/or "tortious interference with a contract." If I can sue you for "tortiously interfering" with my business relationships and contracts and recover damages for my losses, shouldn't I be able to sue someone who interferes with my closest personal relationship which is also a relationship bound by a contract and recognized by the State? If the answer is no, isn't that essentially saying that society thinks that business relationships more sacrosanct than marital relationships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 But ashleymadison.com assured me that I had nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hershey, I never signed anything to sleep with anybody. I think that would kill the mood a little...but I darn well made sure I knew them well enough to know if they were married. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. LOL Deception probably does happen, but I still think one needs to know where one sticks one's willy. I was taught at a young age, "Don't have sex if you're not ready to face all possible reprecussions." Have we stopped believing in that train of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Woooo, not in NY!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Just make sure you don't travel with your cheatening to any of the 6 states mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 It is well settled in American Jurisprudence that if a third party intentionally interferes with a contractual relationship between other parties, that third party may be held liable for their intentional interference with the contractual relationship. The alienation of affection doctrine is somewhat different that the theory above; nevertheless, third parties who never signed a contract can be held liable for intentionally interfering with the contractual relationship. Well then let's man up and go to war bud! I got a case!:excited: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Using the criteria of costs to society (and even perhaps child endangerment) you could say society has a vested interest in your marriage. Your anti smoking crowd done opened the door to meddling;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Wow! NC has this law in place? Hot damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.