If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Mr Ilg woke from a night out at the strip club with no memory of the previous night but a credit card bill for more than $28k so does he. A) Pay the bill. C) Sue the club because he was drunk & 'no longer capable of conducting financial transactions'   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 181
    More: Dumbass, Mr Ilg, Hustler Club, Friendly's, duty to protect, credit card bill  
•       •       •

8649 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 03:45:49 PM

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


I'm sorry that I forced you to click on that link and hurt you personally.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:28 PM
If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...
 
2012-12-13 03:56:19 PM

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


You go to hell and you die.
 
2012-12-13 03:57:43 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: Ilg

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Way to go, dumbass.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:35 PM

edmo: If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...


As long as you don't spoog in her ear?
 
2012-12-13 04:19:03 PM

edmo: If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...


Yes, it is. We're discussing why it's so clear only in this case.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:47 PM

unfarkingbelievable: LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

As a woman who is a former gymnast and ballet dancer and who is still very toned and flexible, BFs/lovers in my past have said it is that physical ability that allows for all kinds of positioning. Also, years of gymnastics and ballet also create a much tighter vag.


Way too many posts went by without a "how YOU doin'?"... y'all are slipping.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:28 PM
If this holds up in court, can you imagine all the paternity suits it will affect?

"I was shiatfaced Judge. If I wasn't shiatfaced I never woulda stuck my dick in that. I mean, just look at her, Judge. Would you hit that sober? I didn't think so".
 
2012-12-13 06:04:23 PM

dk47: Jon iz teh kewl: dk47: pedrop357: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.

But... once you get out of college you figure out that people are constantly consenting to sex while drunk constantly. The whole "chicks can't consent while drunk" is to try to keep dumb kids from date-raping, that's all.

dumb meaning.. gay??

Dumb gays dumb straights, pretty much anybody dumb enough to try it.


anyone stupid is gay. that's what gay means: stupid
 
2012-12-13 06:25:55 PM

Theaetetus: Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.


His statement of the law was overly broad, but only because he didn't state an exception to the law that didn't apply in this case. He had the general rule correct, and the exception to the general rule didn't apply. The case you cited to prove him wrong doesn't directly state any rules relating to voluntary intoxication. There was no reason to state any of those rules because the court found that factually he wasn't actually intoxicated. (although the court did cite to a case that states rules that are similar to the restatement rules.

So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:14 PM
How come women can't consent to sex when drunk while men can? How come if both are drunk the man is at fault?

//Equality when people want it for everyone
 
2012-12-13 08:18:33 PM

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-12-13 08:19:10 PM
William Ilg claimed that the Hustler Club in Manhattan should not have given him the drinks because he was 'no longer capable of conducting financial transactions'.

A strip club
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-13 09:08:48 PM

Pangea: Stile4aly: I work in the claims division for Bank of America.

I hate your employer


For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you had whatever experience that caused you to hate my employer.
 
2012-12-14 12:11:35 AM

Talondel: So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.


Truthfully, Theaetetus wasn't concerned with being right as much as proving me wrong. She is as student of Andrea Dworkin and believes in some pretty crazy stuff like that Gender isn't biologically based. Since I troll people like this:

upload.wikimedia.org
Frowns on your stripper shenanigans


and the subject is law. (She thinks it's her specialty) -She is here to assert her dominance over me. Being right or wrong is not her concern. When her feelings get the best of her, she's all attack and little thought.

The irony is that as Strip Clubs plying men with drinks and dancers is something that Dworkin would have found to be an antithesis to the safety and freedom of women. But hey, why worry about such trivialities when you can lay a verbal smackdown on your perceived enemy.

I also like her choice of words. "idiots giving bad legal advice". Yeah, as if I was giving legal advice.
 
2012-12-14 04:18:45 AM

Theaetetus: Talondel: DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract.


Au contraire, Zehmer also raised the defense that he was drinking and therefore lacked capacity to contract. The court noted that there was no evidence of his lack of capacity, and absent that, the fact that he was drinking was irrelevant.
Thus, as I said, his statement that "a contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk" is incorrect and naive, in that it's overly broad. If the other party to the contract has no reason to believe the signatory is drunk, then the contract is not necessarily voidable.
Consider, for example, the statement in The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Just in case you haven't seen it before, I'll quote it for you:
"A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction."

The above is an accurate description of why Zehmer's defense failed, and is why his statement was overbroad.


There's a fundamental difference between this case and Lucy v. Zehmer that you're failing to take into account.

Zehmer was drinking, but the evidence strongly suggested that he was not so intoxicated as to fail to understand what he was doing, and from the ruling: "It was in fact conceded by defendants' counsel in oral argument that under the evidence Zehmer was not too drunk to make a valid contract."

As you point out, if the other party has reason to know then Lucy v. Zehmer doesn't apply. In this case, the establishment would have been well aware of the amount of alcohol that Mr. Ilg consumed, as they were serving it to him. As evidenced by their conduct in driving him home, they were well aware that he was extremely intoxicated at the end of the evening, and they were aware that their conduct in serving him alcohol would have made them liable under New York's dram shop law if he had injured someone on his way home.

Now, the New York dram shop law makes it illegal to serve someone who is visibly intoxicated, and we can't determine if that was the case here, since we don't have access to the testimony or the video of Mr Ilg in the club, but I would suspect that someone who had blacked out and was so intoxicated that the club felt compelled to provide transportation home was very likely visibly intoxicated earlier in the evening; if that was the case, the club was likely acting illegally by serving him.

That being the case, it stretches credibility to suggest that the club didn't have reason to know that Mr. Ilg was in a sufficiently intoxicated state to be unable to competently contract for goods and services.
 
2012-12-14 08:16:02 AM

Plant Rights Activist: Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.


files.myfrogbag.com
 
2012-12-14 08:24:56 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Talondel: So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.

Truthfully, Theaetetus wasn't concerned with being right as much as proving me wrong. She is as student of Andrea Dworkin and believes in some pretty crazy stuff like that Gender isn't biologically based. Since I troll people like this:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x193]
Frowns on your stripper shenanigans

and the subject is law. (She thinks it's her specialty) -She is here to assert her dominance over me. Being right or wrong is not her concern. When her feelings get the best of her, she's all attack and little thought.

The irony is that as Strip Clubs plying men with drinks and dancers is something that Dworkin would have found to be an antithesis to the safety and freedom of women. But hey, why worry about such trivialities when you can lay a verbal smackdown on your perceived enemy.

I also like her choice of words. "idiots giving bad legal advice". Yeah, as if I was giving legal advice.


The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.
 
2012-12-14 08:33:18 AM

Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.


Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.
 
2012-12-14 08:36:43 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.


No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.
 
2012-12-14 09:11:05 AM

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.

No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.


Sorry, babe I'm just not that into you.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:06 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.

No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.

Sorry, babe I'm just not that into you.


Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.
 
2012-12-14 10:44:20 AM

Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.


Sorry, I'm not into pegging.
 
2012-12-14 10:46:17 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.


Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...
 
2012-12-14 10:56:18 AM

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...


I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.
 
2012-12-14 11:10:34 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...

I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.


You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.
 
2012-12-14 11:26:56 AM

Theaetetus:
You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.


That really twists your panties, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-14 11:31:32 AM

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...

I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.

You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.


You two have completely jacked this thread and made yourselves look like childish assholes. Get a room!
 
2012-12-14 02:51:02 PM
Because People in power are Stupid and Theaetetus

Would you two just fnck and get it over with already? Damn.
 
2012-12-14 02:59:13 PM

DirkTheDaring: Because People in power are Stupid and Theaetetus

Would you two just fnck and get it over with already? Damn.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-14 07:00:03 PM
Looks like subby's B) is still blacked out in an alley somewhere after getting robbed by the stripper and her bouncer boyfriend.
 
Displayed 31 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report