An Australian man is opposing child support on novel grounds: that payment would violate the Trade Practices Act. The man insists that he paid a prostitute for sex and that the sex was a “consumer transaction” and was confined by its terms to the sexual act.
The Melbourne man is married and goes under the pseudonym Mr. Lilley. He insisted that, as in other businesses, customers are allowed to assume that the business has taken appropriate precautions, such as birth control.
The prostitute was is known simply as Ms. Logan in papers had sought $100 per week for child support. Lilley agreed to pay it but then lost his $140,000-a-year job and fell behind in payments.
The court, however, declared that the mandatory requirement of the Child Support Scheme trumped such business assumptions. He was ordered to pay $100 per week subject to his appeal.
What was interesting is that the Court noted that he could sue the brothel for contribution.
The result is not a surprise. American courts have generally enforced child support laws despite false assurances from partners that they were sterile or incapable of having children.
For the full story, click here.
A novelty lawsuit that only a Philadelphia lawyer—with inside connections—would pursue?
The Aussie should have declined when the brothel lass said, “A Penny for your thoughts”…
The poor Bloke went from “small change” for an adulterous change to changing diapers or charging him change for diapers’ changing.
Wow! What about “Fair” Trade Agreements, Implied Warranties such as merchantabalities, fraud in inducement, consumer protection act.
This one is good. In truth I know or a Family that has done quite well in politics and the mother was a “Pro” but only did businessmen in Houston.