barelynangel
Posts: 6233
Status: offline
|
Master ABD, First of all, i never said a Master is answerable to the LAW regards to a contract, i stated that within a contract he is answerable to the other party HIS SLAVE. Which is why i state a Gorean Man does not negotiate with his slave nor is he accountable to her; which is why contracts don't work within gor. The whole idea i was stating lol was a contract makes a Man answerable to the slave! And a Man is not answerable to his slave! You really missed that didn't you. Enforcing does not mean accountable too. It means someone is making one party the Master be accountable for his promises, his statements etc in a contract to in your case a slave. i stated if he murders someone he is answerable to the law, if he breaks the law he is answerable to the State his peers etc. I stated in his actions he may be accountible to the law, his peers, his family, friends, children, but NOT his slave. I said a Man of Gor is NOT answerable to his slave where in a contract the parties are answerable to each other. Contracts are agreements between two parties, the law never is even aware of them most of the time unless there is a dispute that needs interpreting. If one party does not perform said agreements within that contract than the other party may terminate the contract, there may be provisions within the contract that state if one party violates provisions then they have a liability to the other party. Your telling me the parties are not answerable within a contract to each other boggles the mind. We have yet to have a contract within our firm where someone is accountable to the law instead of the other party to the contract based on the contract. If contracts go before a court, it is not that any party is accountable to the court, it means the court is going to interpret the contract for the parties and a court order will enforce that interpretation because there is a difference of opinion (i.e. doesn't agree a provision was violated etc). The court then decides what the contract means but that doesn't change the accountiblity. When a company violates a contract and a grievance is made, an arbitrator interprets the contract but whoever loses is not accountible to the arbitrator but to the party that won. When a woman and man are married, they are not accountible to the court, a court decides who is right in the dispute of divorce and if the violation has occured or if termination is indeed valid and then the losing party is accountible to the winning side whether it be alimony, child support, division of assets etc. I could go on and on, but ironically i lol have a contract to finish and get to one of our clients. Oh and unless there is a question of interpretation, this contract will never be seen by a court of law but instead will only be seen between the two parties. Do you realize that most contract disputes are settled between the parties and never reach a hearing or court at all? So tell me how is the law involved? Most of our contracts have a grievance process that only have the two parties involved trying to work it out between them, if they cannot then they take it to an arbitrator. Marraige is far removed from M/s in my opinion so i cannot comment on it in depth. In the eyes of the law in this case she is signing as a woman about to become a wife a partner within the eyes of the law NOT a slave to a man. Its Man and wife, not Man and slave. Actually more than half is sometimes awarded in divorces. i know California law has a no-fault policy for divorces i believe where unless the parties come to an agreement themselves the assets are split 50/50. I also know of someone who lost basically everything in his divorce here in TN because the judge decided he was the cause of the divorce. The only time a person is answerable to the court is when they violate a court order or a law then they are considered in contempt of court or guilty of a crime. For example, if a Man is ordered to pay childsupport to his wife and doesn't based on the judges order, that is when he is answerable to the court. If a Man and women say never married but have a kid agree on child support without involving a court even write up a contract between them and the Man stops paying, the woman then has to take him into court obtain a court order telling him to pay up, and then if he does not he is in violation of the courts order NOT the contract she and he agreed upon -- the court order itself can be a clarificaton of a provision in a contract between two peope the court order is the enforcement, but until that court order if violated the party is accountable to the other party NOT the court. i am here for discussion, i do two things on these boards, i take what i feel is right into account people who have meritous ideas and arguments (yes even when they are opposite of mine), and i discard the rest. I just don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. So what. i have been learning for these last 5 years and will continue to do so through discussions, and knowing Men of Gor and women of Gor who live the lifestyle daily and know what can and cannot be accomplished within the scope of transfering the philosophies to todays society because they live it. When i become owned again, i will know even more. I will continue to learn from people, i may see things black and white a lot, i am learning to see gray, but to me too many people see too much gray and want to use the copout of this is earth not Gor all the time. Instead of actually sitting down saying wait a minute, the concepts can be applied within my life and lived easily i just need to decipher how that happens because i know people who do it. grins its a good thing my boss doesn't share your opinion on my not understanding contracts lol otherwise, i'd be out of a job. angel
< Message edited by barelynangel -- 2/21/2006 10:06:15 AM >
_____________________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. R.W. Emerson
|