Comments on: The Ultimate Subrogation Contract: Man Sues Neighbor for Failure to Impregnate Wife

By: Aus dem Leben eines Szlauszafs

Aus dem Leben eines Szlauszafs — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:59:54 +0000

Dienst- oder Werkvertrag?…

Vermutlich wird sich die gerade durch das WWW fortpflanzende Geschichte, die angeblich in Stuttgart spielen soll, über die man aber bislang ausschließlich englischsprachige Quellen findet, die alle aufeinander verlinken und sich alle auf einen Scan (od…

By: SlipperyOne

SlipperyOne — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:15:29 +0000

Again, I am offering my services for free. Depending on the “Beauty Queen” I might even spring for dinner.

Was this a Bi-Lateral Contract between the men and the woman was the third party intended beneficiary?

I wonder wonder why?

But then again what was that dang Canadian cows name, the one that was supposed to be sterile?

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:24:41 +0000

“Just for the record, this could have been brought as a torts action under fraud and battery charges in the United States.”

Seriously?

Per Fraud, not a chance:

“The doctor’s announcement that Maus was sterile shocked everyone except his wife, who was forced to confess that Maus was not the real father of their children.”

Per Battery:

Where does the story so much as imply that Mrs. Soupolos, while possibly expressing unease at first, refused her consent?

By: Bron98

Bron98 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:55:53 +0000

On the failure to perform if the guy gave it the old college try is he obligated? This also sounds like a latent defect, he did not know he was shooting blanks. Can a consumer recover from the seller if the seller dosent know the item was defective? Isnt this a case of caveat humpedher?

By: Berliner

Berliner — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:55:45 +0000

rafflaw, I'm not hostile. Sorry, if I came across as such. Maybe my previous lacked a smiley or two. The thing I tried to add is that the case in the link that Prof. Turley presented, i.e. if Maus is liable to return his pay, is trivially easy in German law: - it's a Dienstvertrag (service contract), not a Werksvertrag (creation contract) - it is impossible for him to render the service (i.e. impregnate Traute), so both the service (BGB §275) and the remuneration (BGB §326) are rescinded. Which link?

By: mr.ed

mr.ed — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:28:49 +0000

I do a lot of volunteer work, but missed this opportunity to serve. I’d be happy to take a makeup test as a gesture.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:01:17 +0000

Berliner,
I thought you said this story was a joke. I can see you are in a hostile mood since my comment about it being a good law school exam question really set you off. I finished my law school exams in 1982 so I don’t need to read your link, but I will still state that the facts sound just like one of the unusual fact patterns that my law school professors seemed to enjoy.

By: Former Federal LEO

Former Federal LEO — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:45:57 +0000

More importantly, I want to know if Prof Turley has completely read the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and/or—if in fact—he has contributed to the manual’s voluminous legal language under the auspices of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC).

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:43:08 +0000

Sally:

Right you are, I knew I’d seen this story line before.

By: Sally

Sally — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:40:15 +0000

I with you on this Mespo.

To me, this sounds like a story line for a Jerry Springer episode~

By: Berliner

Berliner — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:25:25 +0000

@rafflaw: Oh, what an easy exam. The main question (refund of the money – yes) is answered simply by reading BGB §326.

By: Charity

Charity — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:45:03 +0000

If it is real, thank God neither of these guys have actually spawned!

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:22:27 +0000

Whether it is real or an old April Fools Joke is not important. It is a funny story and Buddha said it best when he said it sounded like a Torts exam question. I just want to know where do you go to find jobs like the one Maus had? I guess we can’t call him “Might Maus” due to his failures to satisfy his contractual obligations.

By: Berliner

Berliner — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:17:42 +0000

Exhibit A: There are exactly zero google hits in German for this story. Exhibit B: None of the four courts in Stuttgart has a press release on that story. Exhibit C: The English version of this story appeared on or around the 1st of April. It's an Aprils Fool joke. But I really wonder if the author of that joke based this on the rather unusual "paternity cases" Stuttgart courts had to trial (i.e. the "sex auction paternity" and "identical twins paternity" cases), of if that's a coincidence.

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:28:39 +0000

Mespo has probably outlined the legal aspects of this story quite well and succinctly. As for me, I just think it’s hilareous. I can hear the dialogue now:

Herr Maus: I don’t understand why you’re not getting pregnant, Frau Soupolos. Perhaps we should try the washing machine or the kitchen table.

Frau Soupolos: Ya! Ya! Sehr gudt. Und in der basement und der garten und on a weekend away und….

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:31:04 +0000

I think a couple of legal maxims apply here:

A naked agreement does not beget an obligation.
– Broom’s Legal Maxims

He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself.
– Broom’s Legal Maxims

Thus, I predict the Plaintiff will lose, and give the defendant some credit, his incessant sex with a beauty queen was almost certainly a trying affair.

By: Buddha Is Laughing

Buddha Is Laughing — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:30:45 +0000

lol

Yeah, this sounds like a Torts exam question for certain.