This is now officially the highest selling bundle with 599,117+ beating HiB5's 599,003

I wonder what Kant may have said about a car sale:

"“A vehicle like this is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's car without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of money, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's credit rating without being guided by another. Sapere Audi! Have the courage to buy this car! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment...”

XD!

Yeah, I realized I was actually wrong about saying "Kant wouldn't have much to say about a car sale". He always had a lot to say.

Ok, so your point is that neither party to a contract is inherently better or worse than the other and in that sense they are equal? That seems like a really strange comment to make, but ok, I guess I agree with that.

If the contract provides that one has to serve the other, then one has to serve the other, so I am not sure I agree with you there.

It seems that we agree that the parties to a contract have different rights and different responsibilities and therefore are not equal in that sense. They are also different in the context of how they can enforce those rights, one party may have significantly more resources than the other and in that sense may be able to exert more pressure, either through the Court system or through other means, so they are not equal in that sense either.

I'm sorry if I have offended you, I was just trying to correct what seemed to me to be a ridiculous comment.


I could be wrong, but I suspect only one of us is a practicing lawyer.

You have degrees in blood diamond mine management?









Sorry :(

oh - layman jumping in with social theory and computing analogy

"A transaction can only take place when it is beneficial to both involved parties"

I am sure this has a deep and profound impact on this thread and discussion.

After reading that, my life will never be the same.

Well, the post I replied to was among the lines of "they only have to serve me" or something like that. It was meant more in an ethical way. (For once), you brought in the law angle in that discussion.


That is correct (well, I do cases that affect me.) I would actually be liable by simply claiming to be a lawyer (which I never do, I'm just tired of correcting people). I like "legal professional" a lot more. I swore to myself that I would never be a lawyer. I had to work as one before my bar exam, but that is it. (Also I got some really tasty job offers at the moment. And I am somewhat bored professionally. ....


Actually, when speaking at the angle of German property law (which is very unique due to the abstraction principle) just about every transaction is only beneficial to one party. Unless in the property itself is some kind of "negative obligation" by law. (Like nuclear waste on a porperty).

Seems weird?

Have fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_%28law%29

Edit:

While I could discuss about law theory for hours (which I actually do in my freetime), I really need to get to bed.

I thought that was the case. I wasn't trying to be disparaging, just thought that should be cleared up. For the same reason you don't claim to be a lawyer, I am always uncomfortable when I see others call someone a lawyer when they are not.

Maybe in future if I feel the need to correct something i will start with:

annoying legal perspective follows: or something similar, but maybe I will just keep out of such discussions in future.

Did the Nazis enact the anti-Jewish laws in Australia too ;-).

Long story short: In Nazi Germany a lot of Jews were excellent lawyers. They could be stripped of the title lawyer, but you couldn't strip them of their mind (at least Germany wasn't doing that yet). Hence they created laws which made "acting like a lawyer without being one" extremely bad from a liability point of view.

Now, when the war was over, this law (which was without saying extremely beneficial for every official lawyer in the country, never really go repealed. Weird ....

And here I am rambling again ....
Stop with the off-topic posts!

Sorry!

:P

We have a similar law, but a different reason for it.

In my jurisdiction, when you become a lawyer you swear an oath to be ethical and put honesty and justice and the Court before anything else. Non-lawyers don't make a similar oath so the Courts are very strict in ensuring that non-lawyers don't hold themselves out as being lawyers and don't provide any legal services - they can get fined and jailed.

Cynics might suggest that it has something to do with lawyers protecting their own industry from competition as well.

So this is definitely thread of the year, right?

never mind - sleep long overdue.