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 15
    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»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-13 01:19:51 PM
4 votes:

LaraAmber: Karac: 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?)

Most men fantasize about the nasty, kinky things they'd do to a woman if they were allowed to. The pictures in this thread merely reinforce the idea that with certain women, some of those things could actually be physically possible.

Unfortunately in reality 20 seconds into those nasty, kinky things the average guy is a) bent over trying to catch his breath and praying he isn't having a heart attack or b) wondering how he is going to explain his sprained knee to his wife when he told her he was with the guys watching a movie.


Sometimes, 20 seconds is all it takes.
2012-12-13 12:53:04 PM
4 votes:

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. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated Persons
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.


If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.
2012-12-13 01:37:09 PM
2 votes:

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?)


It's unusual and exotic, since most women can't. Additionally, the women pictured are generally young, well-toned and little dressed. That's about it.

Don't pretend it doesn't get you a little hot in the box when you come across pics of a guy doing likewise

i.imgur.com

/ bie eip bb
2012-12-13 12:45:17 PM
2 votes:
i50.tinypic.com
2012-12-14 02:59:13 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-12-13 03:45:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:42 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-13 02:42:59 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: if the other party has reason to know

Uh huh, Talondel very clearly said that.

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.


We are in agreement. You shouldn't give legal advice.
2012-12-13 02:35:35 PM
1 votes:

Izunbacol: TNel: CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.

So no ladies can get drunk then get sexually assualted because they were asking for it.

You're tossing a red herring... There is an idea floating around that if a person is intoxicated when they consent, it is not legitimate because they cannot legitimately consent to actions while intoxicated. Ifa person can be held accountable for the decision to drive a car, the decision to purchase services, the decision to physically assault, etc. while intoxicated, why does the decision to engage in sexual activities fall into a separate category.


Because women are good at nagging.
2012-12-13 02:26:28 PM
1 votes:
Maybe she told him she was working her way through college so he bought her a year at Arizona State?
It's not his fault he didn't notice the "Bursar's Office" was a meth lab
2012-12-13 02:16:36 PM
1 votes:
Let's try that again:

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW
2012-12-13 01:21:56 PM
1 votes:
use a debit card next time, shiat for brains!
2012-12-13 01:19:26 PM
1 votes:

megarian: Also, YAY STRIPPER ARTICLE!

Happy Friday!


Are you from the future?
2012-12-13 12:42:50 PM
1 votes:
I thought this was going to be about a broken atm at the strip club running on an ancient Apple computer.
2012-12-13 12:07:41 PM
1 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.


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.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report