http://20six.co.uk/lemonsquash
powered by 20six.co.uk
|
|
So last night was
...quiz night. After the first two rounds, I take the teams' names and scores, and give everyone a rundown of the current table as it stands. As I was reading out the scores, a young lady approached me, and requested that a team name be changed. It was altered to 'The Quiz Master Will Get Laid If We Win Tonight!' Their score then mysteriously catapulted from 15 to 20. If anyone suspected that I was a man of principle, and not open to bribery and corruption, then I'm afraid that they were woefully off target. Now, this team - which happened to include two rather toothsome young ladies - left the building a bottle of wine, a box of chocolates and £99 better off. Yet was sweet booty ya-ya forthcoming ? Was it cock. Ok, one for the lawyers among us. Do we have a binding contract here ? It looks like that to me. We have an offer - 'we get you laid'. We have acceptance - they win. We have consideration - the aforementioned prizes. There were plenty of witnesses. And I still have their quiz paper, so we even have it in writing. Can I legally hold this team to ending my thousand year drought ?
|
|
|
To date 15 Comment(s)
TrackBack-URL
quips
(28.11.06 10:00)
It's legally binding and i will happily represent you in a court of law. My onl request will be payment in full by way of spare toothsome young lady.
|
Katja
/ Website
(28.11.06 10:13)
I have no idea as to the legality, but you was definitely robbed. Damn those girls and their wily ways.
|
pog
(28.11.06 10:50)
I fear that Quips chappie is 'avin' you on, squish (as were the young ladies). The fact that their team name happened to coincide with one of your dearest wishes does not mean it was a binding contract. It's only a name. Awwww.
|
cathexist
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:03)
I think pog is being unnecessarily pessimistic. To my (admitteldly rather groggy this morning) legal mind it seems arguable that the imminent provision of sweet booty ya-ya was an implied term of the contract, invoking the "officious bystander" test.
Which means, Squish, you could sue for damages. Or, in the event that monetary compensation does not adequately recompense you for your loss (and bearing in mind your 1000-year drought I think you have a strong argument here) you could seek (ahem) "injunctive relief" in the form of (double ahem) "specific performance" of said contract.
|
lemonsquash
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:10)
There is the risk that they may elect one of the burly chaps on their team to execute the 'specific performance'. I'm not sure I want them to discharge their obligation that much.
|
lilo
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:10)
But maybe there was more than one Quiz Master and they went off to shag him in another boozer. The toothsome twosome sound like Quiz Master Floosies to me - you've been 'ad.
|
cathexist
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:16)
Hmmm, yes Squish, I fear they could do just that. But hey, you asked for legal advice, not HELPFUL advice (that costs extra). I'll send you my bill tomorrow.
|
lemonsquash
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:25)
Hmmm. Everyone is screwing me in every which way but the important one, it would appear.
|
undercovercookie
/ Website
(28.11.06 11:32)
Unfortunately, their lawyers would almost certainly argue that a name is just a name and not a promise or description. So, for example if someone is called Chastity, that doesn't mean she is definitly a virgin or for that matter that she is contractually bound by her name never to sleep with you. Someone called Owe is not necessarily in debt just as someone called Dick may not be the prick his name implies.
|
lemonsquash
/ Website
(28.11.06 12:14)
I see wot you mean. Massive debt is not mandatory for someone called Owe - it just so happens to be the case (always).
However, when I called the team on it, they didn't play the moniker card - they acted as if trying to get out of an obligation. For example, one toothsome lady said she felt her duty was discharged as she had once picked me up hitchhiking. Can I use this as evidence ?
|
c-side
/ Website
(28.11.06 18:52)
I'm afraid you was had well and truly Squash. Clever girls! They played to your weakness and won. There is a lesson to be had there somewhere?!
|
colonel knowledge
/ Website
(28.11.06 19:41)
You have abused the position of quizmaster in order to further your own sordid desires. Shame, shame on you, sir!
Would William G. Stewart give a fruity middle-aged type a series of easy questions in exchange for a half 'n' half in the green room?
Would Little Noely Edmonds offer one of those Deal or No Deal sorts a box with something nice in it in return for, er, putting something in their box?
Of course not. These men respect the Code of the Questionmaster and so should you.
Think on.
|
Solis
/ Website
(29.11.06 12:13)
They said you'd get laid, they didn't say when (or by whom). It's fairly likely that you'll play hide the sausage at least once more in your lifetime (and that's a glass-half-empty kinda estimate) - so they were telling the truth.
Case closed.
trogs xx
(your spam catcher is saying 'agina'. Are you making the V sign there?)
|
Moobs
/ Website
(29.11.06 15:52)
It does not sound to me like there was any intention to create legal relations and what they made was an unenforceable conditional promise.
If, however, I am wrong about that, the contract would be voidable on grounds of its being contrary to public policy as it was made for an immoral purpose. It would also be unenforceable on grounds of illegailty as it could only be performed by dint of your breaching your implied contract with those who had paid entry fees that you would conduct the quiz in good faith.
Note that they could, in theory sue you anyway as you have breached their contract with you whether or not you got your end away.
|
lemonsquash
/ Website
(30.11.06 10:33)
The Carnal Of Truth - you are right to castigate me. I have brought a tear to the face of the baby Chris Tarrant.
Snogis - I wish I could share your optimism.
*flogs*
Moob-Toob - so not only will I remain nookieless, but I can expect to be sued by around thirty plaintiffs ? Samson's knob!
|
|