1. CowboysZone Upgrade Coming Soon! For more information, click here.

Legal question

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by masomenos, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,973 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    I was thinking about this earlier today after reading a story about a guy who had entered into a business contract while he was drunk. When he didn't follow through with the duties he said he would, he was sued and taken to court. The man was able to prove that he had been drunk though and the court nullified the contract because he wasn't in a proper state of mind when he signed into the deal.

    How is it different for drunken driving? Wouldn't the same argument hold true, that the individual was not in the right state of mind when they made the decision to drive?

    Now I'm not defending drinking and driving by any means and I imagine that argument is that people could be seriously injured or die from the decision to drink and drive, but legally it seems like a strange double standard.
  2. theogt

    theogt Surrealist Zone Supporter

    44,981 Messages
    2,892 Likes Received
    One major difference is one is a tort and the other a contract. The contract "victim" (the guy that entered into the contract with the drunk person) entered into the situation voluntarily, whereas a potential tort victim wasn't offered a choice. The contract victim, thus, is in a better position to prevent his own harm whereas the the tort victim needs the protection of the law.
  3. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,973 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Ah, that's how it's distinguished. Thanks theo.
  4. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,917 Messages
    487 Likes Received
    you can't use intoxication as a defence to an intoxication related offence
  5. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Another distinction... I guess a piggy back off theo...

    One of the foundations of contract law and enforceability of contracts is two parties are presumed to be at equal bargaining positions. If one party is drunk they aren't thinking as clearly as the other side.

    Oh, that and driving while intoxicated is a crime. ;)

    Crimes typically require an element of intent, and the drunkard intentionally consumed alcohol and got behind the wheel of the car.

    It's really comparing apples to oranges though.

Share This Page